@ Jyoti Swarup Anand Vs. State of Uttaranchal  Insc 131 (5 February 2008)
Thakker & Altamas Kabir
O R D
APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2008 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl)
learned counsel for the parties.
appellant herein was convicted by the trial court for an offence punishable
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was ordered to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years.
aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred
an appeal and the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by him and
converted conviction of the appellant from an offence punishable under Section
307 IPC to Section 324 IPC and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
was issued by this Court to the State. We have heard learned counsel for the
far as conviction is concerned, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the High
Court has committed any error of law. On the question of sentence, an affidavit
is filed by the appellant herein in which it was stated that the appellant is
aged about 92 years. It was also stated as under:
I am suffering from Paralysis in the left part of my body for about last three
in present day I am unable to walk and move from my bed and I am strictly bed
affidavit on behalf of the respondent State is also filed wherein it was stated
that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pithoragarh, Uttarachal has checked
up and the information supplied by the appellant and the affidavit filed by him
are found to be correct.
learned counsel for the appellant stated at the Bar that the appellant has
already undergone sentence for about five weeks. In view of the totality of the
facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, ends of justice would be
met if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already
undergone. Ordered accordingly.
The appeal is allowed to the extent above mentioned. Since the appellant is on
bail the bail bonds of the appellant shall stand discharged.
Pages: 1 2 3 4