SEVA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-3-115
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on March 06,2013

SEVA SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By way of this criminal revision, the revisionist Seva Singh seeks to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 01.07.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in criminal case no. 4409 of 1999 as well as the judgment and order dated 24.01.2003 passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in criminal appeal no. 38 of 2008.
(2.) A first information report was lodged at the instance of one Mr. Nakul Manda against the revisionist Seva Singh and another in U S Nagar on 10.03.1999 as regards the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 IPC. The same was registered as case crime no. 307 of 1999. The investigation started on the basis of said first information report which culminated into the submission of charge sheet against Seva Singh and another as regards offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 506 IPC. The accused revisionist was put to trial. Learned C.J.M, Udham Singh Nagar vide order dated 01.07.2008 convicted Seva Singh for the offences punishable under Section 506 only. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of which he was required to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. Accusedrevisionist was exonerated for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Aggrieved against the said judgment and order, a criminal appeal was preferred by the convict Seva Singh, which criminal appeal was decided on 24.01.2013. The criminal appeal was dismissed and the impugned judgment and order was affirmed.
(3.) The main allegation against the revisionist was as regards offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, which offence was not believed by the courts below. When it was held by the courts below that the factum of assault by the accused persons was not proved, as also the fact of hurling abuses on the informant, there appears to be little scope to entertain the idea that the accused persons threatened the informant with dire consequences. Section 503 IPC is reproduced herein below for ready reference : "503. Criminal intimidation.-- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.