Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 128 (UTT)

HARBHAJAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013-03-13

Alok Singh, Barin Ghosh

body2013
JUDGMENT Per: Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. 1. In the present appeal, judgment and order dated 28.06.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 188 of 2006 whereby learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and accordingly, was pleased to convict and sentence him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- failing which to undergo additional imprisonment of three months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is being assailed by the appellant. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that PW1 lodged an FIR with police station Kotwali, Haldwani on 22.09.2006 to the effect that in his dairy farm about 30-35 rickshaw pullers were residing in different portions. In one of the rooms therein, appellant, watchman of the farm and one rickshaw puller namely Ramu, son of Durga Prasad were residing as tenants. Harbhajan Singh and Ramu were also running a teashop in partnership. There was quarrel between appellant and Ramu on account of some money transactions. Having come to know about the quarrel between appellant and Ramu, in the morning of 22.09.2006, PW1 Kapil Kumar went to the farmhouse and told both them to live peacefully and not to quarrel again and thereafter came back. On the same day, at about 07.30 p.m. PW2 Babu Ram, PW3 Dilip came to his house and informed him that about 06.00 p.m. both of them noticed hue and cry in the room of appellant and Ramu, consequently, both of them went to their room and saw appellant assaulting Ramu with axe. When they tried to save Ramu, appellant by showing axe threatened them and ran away from the spot. Having received the information, PW1 straight away rushed to the farmhouse and found Ramu bleeding profusely and dead. 3. Having received the report, police came to the spot and started investigation. Having investigated the matter, police have filed a charge-sheet against the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 4. After committal of the case, learned trial Judge has framed charge against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. From the side of prosecution, PW1 Kapil Kumar, informant, PW2 Babu Ram, PW3 Dilip both eyewitnesses, PW4 Dr. C.P. Bhasora, PW5 Vinay Kumar and PW6 R.C. Makholiya, were examined. 4. After committal of the case, learned trial Judge has framed charge against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. From the side of prosecution, PW1 Kapil Kumar, informant, PW2 Babu Ram, PW3 Dilip both eyewitnesses, PW4 Dr. C.P. Bhasora, PW5 Vinay Kumar and PW6 R.C. Makholiya, were examined. Having perused the material available on record, learned Sessions Judge was pleased to pass the judgment impugned. Feeling aggrieved, appellant has preferred this appeal from jail. 5. We have heard Mr. M.C. Pant, Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. A.S. Gill, Sr. Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Vipul Painuly and carefully perused the record. 6. While appearing in the witness box, informant Kapil Kumar (PW1) has supported the prosecution story as narrated in the FIR. PW2 Babu Ram and PW3 Dilip Kumar while appearing in the witness box have also stated that on 22.09.2006 both of them were present in their respective rooms, however, after hearing the hue and cry, they ran towards the room where appellant and Ramu were residing and saw that the appellant was assaulting Ramu with axe. Both of them tried to save Ramu, however, Harbhajan by showing axe threatened them and fled away from the spot. Immediately, thereafter, both of them informed PW1 about the incident and thereafter, police came on the spot and in their presence police prepared the inquest report and seized pieces of simple and blood stained floor, collected human hairs from the palm of deceased Ramu and kept in sealed cover. 7. PW1, PW2 and PW3 were cross examined at length but nothing came out which could shake their testimonies. PW4 Dr. C.P. Bhasora, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of Ramu, has stated that dead body of Ramu was having 6 ante-mortem lacerated injuries and in his opinion injuries could have been caused by a sharp edged heavy weapon, which could be an axe. According to him, death of Ramu could have been caused at about 06.00 p.m. in the evening of 22.09.2006. 8. As per the Forensic Science Laboratory report Exhibit A 12, Axe recovered and Kurta wore by the deceased have blood stains of same blood group. Hairs found in the hand of deceased Ramu are of present appellant. 9. Statements of PW1, PW2 and PW3, in our firm opinion, stood corroborated by the scientific evidence i.e. medical evidence as well as Forensic Science Laboratory report. Hairs found in the hand of deceased Ramu are of present appellant. 9. Statements of PW1, PW2 and PW3, in our firm opinion, stood corroborated by the scientific evidence i.e. medical evidence as well as Forensic Science Laboratory report. There is nothing on record to suggest as to why PW1, PW2, PW3 would falsely implicate the appellant, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the reasons and findings recorded by the trial court, therefore, appeal fails and is dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court below for information. Lower court record be sent back forthwith.