Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 648 (UTT)

State of Uttaranchal v. Ravindra Singh

2012-10-08

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2012
Judgment : Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.02.2001, passed by Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 1997, whereby said court has acquitted the accused/respondent Ravindra Singh from the charge of offence punishable under section 308 IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story in brief is that on 18.08.1995, at about 5:00 p.m., P.W.1 Dayal Singh had gone to the shop of one Sita Ram to make some purchases. When he reached near inter section of three ways on Garhi Road in Dehradun, accused Ravindra Singh armed with LATHI and accused Pyar Singh armed with PATAL (sharp edged weapon) assaulted Dayal Singh who suffered injuries on his head. A first information report (Ex. A1) was lodged by P.W.1 Dayal Singh on the basis of which crime no. 502 of 1995, was registered in respect of offence punishable under section 308 IPC, against the two accused namely Pyar Singh and Ravindra Singh. The investigation was taken up by Sub Inspector Chaman Singh (P.W.3) who interrogated the witnesses, collected medical evidence regarding injury on person of the injured (Dayal Singh), inspected the spot and submitted charge sheet against accused Ravindra Singh and Pyar Singh for their trial in respect of offence punishable under section 308 IPC. However, accused Pyar Singh died before committal of the case and his case stood abated. 4. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, on receipt of the charge sheet (Ex. A6) appears to have committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial of accused Ravindra Singh. Learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, on 07.08.1997, after hearing the parties framed charge of offence punishable under section 308 IPC, against accused Ravindra Singh who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W.1 Dayal Singh (injured/informant), P.W.2 Raghunath Singh (eye witness) and P.W.3 Chaman Singh (Investigating Officer). Medical officer who examined injuries on person of the injured, appears to have been not examined as learned defence counsel admitted genuineness of the injury report and dispensed with the formal proof of the same. 5. On this, prosecution got examined P.W.1 Dayal Singh (injured/informant), P.W.2 Raghunath Singh (eye witness) and P.W.3 Chaman Singh (Investigating Officer). Medical officer who examined injuries on person of the injured, appears to have been not examined as learned defence counsel admitted genuineness of the injury report and dispensed with the formal proof of the same. 5. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which he pleaded that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court after hearing the parties found that prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Ravindra Singh has assaulted Dayal Singh in an attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and acquitted him from the charge of offence punishable under section 308 IPC. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 12.02.2001, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 1997, this appeal is preferred by the State. 6. Notices were issued by this Court, and after hearing the parties the leave to appeal was granted, appeal was admitted, and lower court record was summoned. 7. Before further discussion this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the injuries said to have been suffered by Dayal Singh (P.W.1) on 18.08.1995, as recorded in the injury report (Ex. A3) by Dr. R.S. Puri of Government Hospital, Rishikesh. It is already mentioned above that genuineness of this document was admitted by the defence counsel and the formal proof was dispensed with. The injuries mentioned in the injury report (Ex. A3) which were found by the medical officer on the person of Dayal Singh on 18.08.1995, at about 6:30 p.m., are reproduced as under:- (i) Lacerated wound 2cmX ½ cm scalp deep longitudinal on the middle forehead, 5cm above the bridge of nose. Bleeding present. Margin rigged. (ii) Lacerated wound ½ cm X ½ cm into skin deep on the left side of nose upper part, margin rigged. Bleeding present. (iii) Lacerated wound 6cm X ½ cm into scalp deep at the left side of skull 7cm above middle of left eye brow, 9cm, above the top of left ear longitudinal. Margin rigged. Bleeding present. (iv) Lacerated wound 3cm X ½ cm into scalp deep on the left side of skull, longitudinal 1cm, behind injury no. 3. Margin rigged. Bleeding present. Margin rigged. Bleeding present. (iv) Lacerated wound 3cm X ½ cm into scalp deep on the left side of skull, longitudinal 1cm, behind injury no. 3. Margin rigged. Bleeding present. (v) Lacerated wound 6cm X ½ cm into scalp deep longitudinal on the left side of skull, 1.5cm below and medial to injury no. 4. Margin rigged. Bleeding present. (vi) Lacerated wound 4cm X ½ cm into scalp deep transverse on the top and middle of skull, 16cm above the bridge of nose. Margin rigged, bleeding present. (vii) Abrasion 2cm X ½ cm on the back of left knee joint, oozing of blood present. (viii) Abrasion 4cm X ½ cm longitudinal on the middle side of left forearm, 6cm above the wrist joint. Oozing of blood present. The opinion given by Dr. R.S. Puri, Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Rishikesh (Ex. A3) in respect of the above injuries is that the nature of injuries was simple. The same were fresh and appear to have been caused by a blunt hard object. Now this Court has to see whether prosecution has successfully proved or not whether accused Ravindra Singh caused these injuries on person of Dayal Singh (P.W.1) in an attempt to commit homicide not amounting to murder. This Court has to further examine as to whether the trial court has erred in law or not in holding that the charge stood not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 8. P.W.1 Dayal Singh is star witness of this case. He is injured person who has suffered injuries in the incident. P.W.1 Dayal Singh has stated that on 08.08.1995, it was the day of JANAMASHTAMI. He further told that at about quarter to five in the afternoon, he had gone for making certain purchases in a shop. The witness further narrates no sooner he reached near inter section of three ways on Garhi Road, accused Ravindra Singh armed with LATHI and his father Pyar Singh (since deceased) armed with PATAL came and assaulted him. P.W.1 Dayal Singh further told that he suffered several injuries on his head and started bleeding. He further told that witness Raghunath Singh (P.W.2) and Attar Singh came there and rescued him. He has also stated that his injuries were medically examined in Government Hospital, Rishikesh on the very day. The witness also proved first information report (Ex. A1) lodged by him at Police Station Rishikesh. 9. He further told that witness Raghunath Singh (P.W.2) and Attar Singh came there and rescued him. He has also stated that his injuries were medically examined in Government Hospital, Rishikesh on the very day. The witness also proved first information report (Ex. A1) lodged by him at Police Station Rishikesh. 9. Statement of the above mentioned injured eye witness (P.W.1 Dayal Singh) gets fully corroborated from the medical evidence already discussed above. From the copy General Diary (Ex. A8) of which the genuineness is admitted and formal proof dispensed with by the defence counsel it is established that the first information report (for short FIR) was lodged at 6:10 p.m., on the basis of which it can be said that the first information report is prompt one. The check report of FIR is marked (Ex. A4) in the lower court record by the trial court which also shows that the FIR was lodged at 6:10 p.m., on the day of incident itself. Apart from this there is strong evidence in the form of oral testimony given by P.W.2 Raghunath Singh an eye witness whose name figures in the FIR who has corroborated the statement of P.W.1 Dayal Singh (Injured). P.W.2 Raghunath Singh has stated that Pyar Singh (since deceased) though first assaulted at Dayal Singh (P.W.1) with PATAL (a sharp edged weapon) but his blow could not land as the injured (Dayal Singh) stopped the assault with his hand. P.W.2 Raghunath Singh further told that thereafter accused Ravindra Singh gave several blows with LATHI on the head of Dayal Singh. The said injuries are found by the Medical Officer on the person of Dayal Singh at the time of preparing the injury report. 10. Having reappreciated the evidence on record as above, this Court finds that it was a clear case in which the prosecution had successfully proved charge of offence punishable under section 308 I.P.C., against accused Ravindra Singh. The grounds mentioned by the trial court for holding that the charge is not proved beyond reasonable doubt are lame. The place of incident regarding which the trial court has observed that there was some discrepancy, is of little help to the defence. It is not every doubt on the basis of which accused can be acquitted. There will be no case where some doubts cannot be created or projected. The place of incident regarding which the trial court has observed that there was some discrepancy, is of little help to the defence. It is not every doubt on the basis of which accused can be acquitted. There will be no case where some doubts cannot be created or projected. The court’s duty is to do the justice, and not to search excuses to believe or disbelieve the prosecution story. It is only the reasonable doubt of which benefit can be given to the accused. The doubts expressed in the prosecution story by the trial court are not reasonable doubts. The trial court has observed that there was injury on person of the accused Pyar Singh and the prosecution has not explained the same. In this connection, this Court is of the view that it is settled principle of law that every injury is not required to be explained by prosecution. It is only when the injury is not superficial and caused at the time of the incident to the accused, the prosecution has to explain the same. In this connection, it is relevant to mention here that defence has led no evidence to prove or show the fact that the accused Pyar Singh had suffered injury nor it is shown that such a injury was not superficial or that it was caused at the time of the incident, as such, this Court holds that the approach adopted by the trial court in appreciating the evidence is erroneous in law. 11. For the reasons as discussed above, this appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 12.02.2001, passed by Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 1997, acquitting the accused Ravindra Singh from charge of offence punishable under section 308 IPC, is hereby set aside. The accused/respondent Ravindra Singh is hereby convicted under section 308 IPC. However, considering the fact that the incident is about seventeen years old, and further considering the fact that the offence punishable under section 308 I.P.C., is punishable only with maximum sentence of three years, this Court is of the view that while sentencing the convict, probation under section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, can be given to him. However, considering the fact that the incident is about seventeen years old, and further considering the fact that the offence punishable under section 308 I.P.C., is punishable only with maximum sentence of three years, this Court is of the view that while sentencing the convict, probation under section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, can be given to him. Therefore, accused/respondent Ravindra Singh is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, but he shall be released on probation of good conduct for one year, for which he shall execute a personal bond with two sureties before the trial court within a month from today. In case he keeps his behaviour and good conduct for one year, he need not to serve out the sentence awarded by this court. The accused/ respondent is directed to execute the bond, and furnish two sureties bonds as mentioned above before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, within time allowed as above , failing which the trial court shall to get executed the sentence awarded by this court. Lower court record be sent back.