AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

On 25.07.2003, the revisionist, Constable Rakshpal Singh, along with other police constables, produced the accused Vishwas Pandit before the Special Judge under the Gangster Act. While returning from the court, Vishwas Pandit escaped custody at the Railway Station. Following an investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the revisionist under Sections 223 and 224 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The revisionist pleaded not guilty and was tried after framing of charges. The prosecution examined three witnesses, and the revisionist's statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), wherein he denied all incriminating evidence.

The Trial Court acquitted the revisionist under Section 224 IPC but convicted him under Section 223 IPC, sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The revisionist appealed against the judgment dated 02.08.2018, but the appeal was dismissed on 03.12.2022 by the Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the sentence of fine imposed on the revisionist under Section 223 IPC should be altered to grant him the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958?

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

  • The matter has been pending since 2003, indicating prolonged litigation.
  • The revisionist has no prior criminal history.
  • Two co-accused persons were granted the benefit of probation by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar.
  • Based on these factors, the revisionist should also be granted the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, instead of the fine imposed.

State's Arguments

  • The State did not oppose the submissions for probation.
  • According to the Probation Officer's report from Tehri Garhwal, the revisionist has no criminal history.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court considered the facts and circumstances, including the revisionist's clean criminal record, the lengthy pendency of the case since 2003, and the fact that two co-accused were granted probation. The Court noted the absence of any record indicating prior unacceptable activities by the revisionist. Given these factors, the Court found it appropriate to alter the nature of the sentence without disturbing the conviction. The Court relied on the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to grant the revisionist the benefit of probation, emphasizing rehabilitation and good conduct over punishment by fine.

Holding and Implications

The Court altered the sentence imposed on the revisionist from a fine to probation.

The revisionist, Rakshpal Singh, is released on probation for six months on his entering into a bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety of the like amount. He is directed to keep peace and maintain good behavior during this period and to appear before the Probation Officer, Tehri Garhwal, within a week. The Court did not alter the conviction but modified only the sentence. The direct effect is that the revisionist will be rehabilitated under supervision rather than punished monetarily. No new legal precedent was established by this decision.

    Constable Rakshpal Singh Revisionist v. State Of Uttarakhand .

    Alok Kumar Verma, J.:— While convicting the revisionist - accused Constable Rakshpal Singh under Section 223 of the Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) by learned Trial Court, he was punished with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.

    2. Heard Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State.

    3. Admit.

    4. As per the prosecution, on 25.07.2003, the revisionist along with other police Constables produced the accused Vishwas Pandit before the Special Judge (Gangster Act). When they were taking him back after producing him before the Court, he ran away from their custody from the Railway Station. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

    5. Charges were framed under Section 223 IPC and Section 224 IPC. Revisionist - accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as three witnesses.

    6. The statement of the revisionist - accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. He denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution.

    7. Learned Trial Court heard the parties, appreciated the evidence and passed the judgment.

    8. Revisionist was acquitted of the charge framed under Section 224 IPC, however, he was convicted under Section 223 IPC.

    9. Revisionist filed an Appeal against the said judgment dated 02.08.2018, passed by learned Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 8747 of 2018. The said Criminal Appeal (No. 155 of 2018) has been dismissed vide judgment dated 03.12.2022, passed by learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar.

    10. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate, submits that the present matter is pending since 2003. Revisionist has no criminal history and two co-accused persons were granted benefit of probation by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar.

    11. After advancing the said submissions, Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate, has requested to alter the sentence and give him (revisionist) the benefit of probation under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

    12. The said submissions have not been opposed by the State.

    13. Learned counsel for the State submits that as per the report, received from the Probation Officer, Tehri Garhwal, revisionist has no criminal history.

    14. The present matter is pending since 2003. Two co-accused persons were granted benefit of probation by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar. There is nothing on record to indicate that the revisionist had earlier been involved any unacceptable activities.

    15. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it seems appropriate that the sentence, passed against the revisionist, should be altered and the benefit of probation should be granted to the revisionist.

    16. Consequently, without altering the findings of the court below, the nature of the sentence is being altered.

    17. Resultantly, the revisionist - accused Rakshpal Singh be released on probation on good conduct for six months, on his entering into a bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety of the like amount to appear and receive sentence when he is called during such period. In the meantime, he is directed to keep the peace and be of good behavior. Revisionist is further directed to appear before the Probation Officer, Tehri Garhwal, within a week from today.

    18. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment to the Probation Officer, Tehri Garhwal, for necessary action. The provision of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 will apply in the present matter.

    19. Present Criminal Revision (No. 793 of 2022) stands disposed of accordingly.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Constable Rakshpal Singh Revisionist v. State Of Uttarakhand .
    (Aug 23, 2023)