Partly allowed

Lakhvinder Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC15 Dec 2020CRLR/179/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court upheld the conviction for sheltering stolen property under Section 411 IPC but, considering the accused's poverty and profession, reduced the imprisonment sentence from one year to three months while maintaining the fine, allowing the revision partly.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment reduced to three months; fine remains unaltered; bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged.

Lakhvinder Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand — Cheating and Forgery | Uttarakhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Revision No. 179 of 2014

¶3

Lakhvindar Singh. ......Revisionist.

¶4

Versus State of Uttarakhand. …. ….Respondent

¶5

Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Siddharath Bisht, Brief Holder for the State.

¶6

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶7

The instant revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.07.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2012, Lakhvinder Singh Vs. State, by Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short “the appeal”). By the impugned judgment and order, the conviction and sentence of the revisionist under Section 411 IPC, as recorded by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, on 06.03.2012, in Criminal Case No. 1347 of 2008, State Vs. Lakhvinder Singh, has been confirmed. Learned Judicial Magistrate convicted the revisionist under Section 411 IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-.

¶8

The case is based on an FIR lodged by Mangal Singh on 01.10.2008. According to it, his motorcycle was stolen on 27.09.2008. During investigation, the said motorcycle was recovered on 22.10.2008 from the possession of the revisionist. Charge-sheet was submitted. The revisionist was charged under Section 379, 411 IPC. There are only three prosecution witnesses namely PW1 Mangal Singh informant, PW2 Constable Gian Prakash, PW3 K.R. Pandey, Investigating Officer, who were examined.

¶9

The learned trial court by the judgment and order dated 06.03.2012, convicted and sentenced the revisionist, as stated

¶10

¶11

hereinbefore, which was challenged in the appeal, which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2014. Hence, this revision.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the record.

¶13

Learned counsel for the revisionist would raise only one legal point. According to him, the revisionist has been acquitted of the charge under section 379 IPC and he has been convicted for the offence under Section 411 IPC, on the presumption that revisionist knew that the motorcycle, which was recovered from his possession, is a stolen motorcycle. It is argued that in law, this presumption cannot be made. In alternate, learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that though revisionist ought to have discharged his burden by proving as to how he got the motorcycle, which he did not but he is a poor man and he earns his livelihood by driving a taxi, therefore, sentence may be reduced.

¶14

Learned State Counsel supports the contention that sentence may be reduced and fine may be increased.

¶15

The scope of revision is very limited to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of a judgment. As per the prosecution case, the stolen motorcycle was recovered from the possession of the revisionist. The motorcycle belongs to the informant PW1 Mangal Singh. Witnesses have proved this fact. The recovery is proved. It was within the special knowledge of the revisionist as to how he got the motorcycle. As per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it was revisionist’s burden to prove this fact as to how he got the motorcycle, which he did not. In such circumstances, there is only one presumption that the revisionist knew that the motorcycle, which he was possessing, is stolen one. Therefore, there is no reason to make any interference in the impugned judgment insofar as conviction under Section 411 IPC is concerned.

¶16

¶17

An argument is raised with regard to the sentence. It is argued that the revisionist has no criminal history. He is a poor man and he earns his livelihood by running a taxi.

¶18

Having considered the nature of the offence and condition of the offender, this Court is of the view that interest of justice would be served, if sentence of imprisonment is reduced to three months. Therefore, while upholding the conviction, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to three months. The sentence of fine shall remain unaltered.

¶19

The impugned judgment and order is modified to that extent.

¶20

The revision is accordingly allowed partly.

¶21

The revisionist is on bail. His bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. He be taken into custody to undergo remaining sentence, if any.

¶22

Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the learned court below for compliance.

¶23

SKS

Lakhvinder Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhvinder Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cyrial H. Joseph Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Suchit Narang Vs State of Uttarakhand

Navneet Chauhan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Devendra Dhiman Vs Sunil Kumar and Others

Devendra Dhiman Vs Sunil Kumar and Others

Dr. Ved Prakash Tyagi Vs Union of India