HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 1076 of 2025 Sachin Rana ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Ashish Kumar Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Virk, D.A.G. for the State. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks resettling of conviction and sentence of the petitioner, which has been upheld up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court even in the review petition. The petitioner seeks directions that he may be acquitted of the charge in which he has been convicted and compensation may also be awarded to him for the 12 years’ period during which he was behind bars. 2. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows:- (i) The petitioner was chargesheeted for the offence under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 IPC in FIR No.469 of 2013, Police Station-Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Based on it, the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 367 of 2013, State Vs. Sachin Rana, were instituted in the court of Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the Sessions Trial”). The Sessions 2 Trial was decided on 03.06.2015, and the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Sections 302, 201 IPC. (ii) The petitioner did challenge his conviction before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.199 of 2015 (“the appeal”). The appeal was dismissed. (iii) The petitioner challenged the judgment of the appeal passed by the High Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Crl No.7317 of 2022, which was also dismissed. (iv) Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. 3. Now, the petitioner seeks his acquittal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conviction has wrongly been recorded; there is no evidence, which may justify the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner has been convicted, and his conviction has been upheld even by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The review petition has also been dismissed. The petitioner, if so advised, may still have an opportunity of filing curative petition, if law permits so. But, in the writ petition, the evidence may not be re-appreciated to unsettle such finding, which has attained finality. 3 7. Having considered, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission, itself. 8. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 06.10.2025 Ravi Bisht