Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand on 9 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:5964
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No.139 of 2007
09th July, 2025
Ved Prakash Bhatt ..........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ..........Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Ms. Priya Mewari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. B.N. Molakhi, Advocate for the
appellant.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, D.A.G. with Mr. Vikash Uniyal, B.H. for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This criminal appeal is filed under Section
374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter to be referred as “the Cr.P.C.”) against the
judgment and order dated 27/28.04.2007, passed by
Shri Ram Singh (H.J.S.) Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal
in Sessions Trial No.9 of 2005, State Vs. Ved Prakash
Bhatt, whereby the appellant/applicant has been
convicted in Case Crime No.31 of 2005, Police Station
Devprayag, District Tehri Garhwal, under Section 304
IPC convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo
seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000/-
and in default of payment of fine, shall further undergo
six months additional imprisonment.
2. Facts of the case are that on January 18,
2005, Head Constable Basant Lal of Dev Prayag Police
Station witnessed Ved Prakash Bhatt push a woman and
a boy into the Bhagirathi River at Fhuladi Ghat. The
victims were later identified as Hema and her 12-year-old
son, Deepak Kotiyal. Ved Prakash Bhatt was immediately
arrested, and an FIR for murder under Section 302 IPC
was filed. Four days later, on January 22, 2005, Hema’s
1
2025:UHC:5964
husband, Suresh Chandra Kotiyal, provided a written
statement, confirming the identities of his wife and son
and requesting legal action. On February 20, 2005, over
a month after the incident, Deepak’s body was recovered
near Kodiyala and identified. Hema’s body, however, was
never found. Following the investigation, a charge sheet
for murder was filed against Ved Prakash Bhatt in the
Magistrate’s court.
3. Magistrate’s Court took cognizance of the
criminal case against the accused-Ved Prakash. The
accused was summoned and given copies of the
prosecution papers. Since the case was of criminal
nature, the case was handed over to the Sessions Court
for trial, on the basis of which this session suit was
registered in this court against the accused-Ved Prakash.
Accused-Ved Prakash was summoned and the defence
counsel and the District Government Advocate (Criminal)
were heard on the question of charge and on finding
sufficient grounds, a charge under Section 302 of the IPC
was framed against accused-Ved Prakash, which the
accused denied and sought trial.
4. As many as nine witnesses were produced by
the prosecution to prove its case against the appellant.
They are PW1-Constable Narendra Singh Rawat, PW2-
Sub-Inspector Basant Lal, PW3-Smt. Reeta Devi, PW4-
Smt. Renuka, PW5-Suresh Chandra Kotiyal, PW6-
Hemank, PW7-Dr. Ajay Kumar Gairola, PW8-
Constable Kanta Prasad and PW9-Mahesh Joshi (Police
Station in-charge).
5. After prosecution evidence, the statements of
accused-appellant were recorded under Section 313
2
2025:UHC:5964
Cr.P.C. in which they stated that a false case was filed
against him.
6. On completion of trial, the trial court convicted
and sentenced the accused-appellant as mentioned in
sentence part of this judgment.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length and have carefully perused the entire documents
available on record.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant having
argued extensively finally submitted before this Court
that the judgment and order passed by the trial court is
based on the evidence which is not reliable due to several
contradictions and developments during trial. He also
argued and submitted alternately that if this Court is not
convinced on the arguments advanced by him, the
appellant may be extended the benefit of Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the
Act of 1958’).
9. To this submission learned State counsel has
no serious objection and he also admitted that the
appellant can be extended the benefit of the Act of 1958.
10. It was also argued on behalf of the appellant
that it was his first and only offence; appellant has no
criminal antecedent; he belongs to the poor strata of
society and also has liability. It is also submitted that
alleged incident was not a premeditated one.
11. Learned State Counsel also stated before this
Court that he has not received any report regarding any
other criminal antecedents of the appellant except this
case.
3
2025:UHC:5964
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant on merits of the appeal, I do not find any
reason to interfere in the well reasoned judgment and
order passed by the learned trial court. The prosecution
succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable
doubt against the appellant with cogent and unshaken
evidence. Thus, no interference is warranted.
13. Now, this Court would embark upon to
examine the next submission as to whether benefit of the
Act of 1958 can be extended to the appellant.
14. It is strenuously submitted by the learned
counsel for the appellant that provisions of Section 4 of
the Act of 1958 may be pressed into service to postpone
the sentence awarded by the Court below and to release
the appellant on the bond of good-conduct to be executed
by him before the concerned Probationary Officer or
before trial court.
15. In order to buttress his argument, learned
counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment
passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal
Revision No.154 of 2012 Harendra Singh Vs. State of
Uttarakhand dated 29.08.2020, wherein the Court has
granted the benefit of the Act of 1958. Para nos.9 and 14
of the aforesaid judgment, which contained Apex Court’s
judgments on the point are quoted below:-
“Para-9: In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
“Commandant, 20th Battalion, ITB Police Vs. Sanjay
Binjola” reported in 2001 SCC (Cri.) 2, 897, in paragraph
no.7, has held as under:
“7. Probation of Offenders Act has been enacted in view of
the increasing emphasis on the reformation and
rehabilitation of the offenders as a useful and self-reliant
members of society without subjecting them to deleterious
effect of jail life. The Act empowers the Court to release on
probation, in all suitable cases, an offender found guilty of4
2025:UHC:5964
having committed an offence not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life or for the description mentioned in
Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act.”
Para-14: In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
“Paul George vs. State of NCT of Delhi” reported in 2008
SCC (Cri.) 2, 768, in paragraph no.12, has held as under:
12. This litigation has been going on for the last 20 years
and has been fought tenaciously through various courts,
we are also told that the appellant who has had a good
career throughout but for this one aberration has since
been dismissed from service on account of his conviction.
We, therefore, while dismissing the appeal, feel that the
ends of justice would be met if we direct that the appellant
be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958 on conditions to be imposed by the
Trial Court. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.”
16. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
appellant that the Coordinate Bench of this Court while
extending the benefit of the aforesaid provisions of the
Act of 1958 has placed reliance upon the judgment
rendered by Apex Court, which has been quoted in Para
14 of the judgment of Coordinate Bench of the Court.
17. Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the
application of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of
1958 as in view of the provisions of the said Act of 1958,
power can be exercised, while if a person is found guilty
of committing an offence not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life and with regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, like nature of the case and
character of the offender, the appellant can be given
benefit of the said provision.
18. In order to appreciate the argument advanced
by the learned counsel for the appellant, the provisions
of Section 4 of the Act of 1958, is required to be
appreciated. The same is quoted hereinbelow:-
“4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation
of good conduct.–
(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an
offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life5
2025:UHC:5964
and the court by which the person is found guilty is of
opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case
including the nature of the offence and the character of the
offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good
conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead
of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he
be released on his entering into a bond, with or without
sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon
during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court
may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be
of good behaviour: Provided that the court shall not direct
such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the
offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or
regular occupation in the place over which the court
exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live
during the period for which he enters into the bond.
(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court
shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the
probation officer concerned in relation to the case.
(3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court
may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender
and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a
supervision order directing that the offender shall remain
under the supervision of a probation officer named in the
order during such period, not being less than one year, as
may be specified therein, and may in such supervision
order, impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the
due supervision of the offender.
(4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section
(3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter
into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the
conditions specified in such order and such additional
conditions with respect to residence, abstention from
intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having
regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to
impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a
commission of other offences by the offender.
(5) The court making a supervision order under sub-section
(3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of
the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the
supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if
any, and the probation officer concerned.”
19. From perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is
clear that the power vests with the Court to release a
person on a bond of good conduct by extending the
benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958, if any person is
found guilty of having committed an offence not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life, but, at
the same time, the Court will extend the benefit so
6
2025:UHC:5964
provided under Section 4 of the Act of 1958 having due
regard to the nature of the offence and the character of
the offender.
20. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that
the offences, for which the appellant was convicted, do
not entail the punishment of death or imprisonment for
life. So, the nature of the offences is such, where, this
Court can give the benefit of the Act of 1958 to the
appellant. The submission made by the learned counsel
for the appellant regarding the fact that there is other
circumstance which would warrant the application of
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the
facts of the case, and he has undergone the trauma of
the criminal trial for the last so many years, coupled with
the fact that the appellant has no criminal antecedents
and even prior and after the aforesaid crime, this is the
only offence which has so far been registered against
him. She also submits that as per the record, appellant
is a case of schizophrenia who is on medication and is on
treatment for that.
21. In this view of the fact, this Court is of the
opinion that no useful purpose would serve by
immediately sending the appellant to jail for serving the
sentence awarded by the trial court.
22. In this view of the matter, the appeal is partly
allowed. Judgment and order passed by learned trial
court is hereby affirmed. The conviction as recorded by
the trial court shall remain intact. However, so far as the
sentence part is concerned, it is directed that the
appellant shall be released on probation for a period of
two years on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable
sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
7
2025:UHC:5964
concerned trial court. The fine imposed by the trial court
shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of one
month, if not already deposited, from the date of receipt
of this order, with the court concerned. The concerned
Magistrate/court shall be at liberty to impose such
condition(s) while executing the bond which he feels fit in
accordance with the law. It goes without saying that if
appellant fails to observe good conduct and behaviour
during probation, or is found violating any condition
imposed, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel
the bond of good conduct calling the appellant to serve
out the sentence awarded by the learned trial court. The
appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender provided
he executes the bond of good conduct before the court
concerned as directed above, within 21 days from the
date of this judgment.
23. Let a copy of this judgment, along with the
LCR, be sent forthwith to the trial court for
information/compliance.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
09.07.2025
SK
8
[ad_1]
Source link