Skip to content


Amir SaIn Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1974CriLJ196
AppellantAmir Sain
RespondentState of Himachal Pradesh
Excerpt:
- .....of fine petitioner was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. the learned sessions judge, kinnaur, on appeal, confirmed the conviction of the appellant but reduced his sentence to a fine of rs. 200/- only. this revision-petition is directed against the order of the learned sessions judge,2. learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that as dr. mohinder singh who had examined the injuries of the complainant could not be examined in support of his medical certificate, as he was dead, the certificate was not proved and the courts below have erred in placing reliance on the same. there is no substance in this argument. as the doctor was dead the certificate could be proved by his compounder who was conversant with his writing.3. the medical report.....
Judgment:
ORDER

H.C.P. Tripathi, J.

1. Petitioner was convicted by a Magistrate I Class, Pooh, District Kinnaur, for an offence under Section 325, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 600/-. In default of payment of fine petitioner was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur, on appeal, confirmed the conviction of the appellant but reduced his sentence to a fine of Rs. 200/- only. This revision-petition is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge,

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that as Dr. Mohinder Singh who had examined the injuries of the complainant could not be examined in support of his medical certificate, as he was dead, the certificate was not proved and the Courts below have erred in placing reliance on the same. There is no substance in this argument. As the doctor was dead the certificate could be proved by his compounder who was conversant with his writing.

3. The medical report indicated that there were six injuries on the person of the complainant and there was dislocation of his two incisor teeth. One of the injuries was a contusion 5' x 3 1/2' on his scapula. The prosecution case was supported by the complainant, his wife and his daughter. Accused is a brother of the complainant. The two Courts, therefore, rightly believed the prosecution case against the petitioner.

4. It is, however, strange to find that the trial Magistrate passed a nominal sentence of undergoing the imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 600/- in a case under Section 325, I.P.C. In a case under Section 325, I.P.C. a substantive sentence for imprisonment is called for as the maximum sentence provided is seven years. Therefore, if the Magistrate was satisfied that the petitioner was responsible for causing six injuries on the person of the complainant he ought to have awarded a substantial sentence of imprisonment to the petitioner and not a nominal sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court.

5. The mistake was repeated by the Sessions Judge when he reduced, the fine of Rs. 600/- to a nominal fine of Rs. 200/- only. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge has no clear conception of awarding appropriate sentences in criminal cases.

6. This is a case in which I was inclined to issue a notice to the petitioner to show cause why his sentence be not enhanced. But as more than three years have passed since 17-7-1970, the date of the incident and as the petitioner is a brother of the complainant I refrain from issuing a notice. With these observations this revision is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //