Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 149 (UTT)

TARUN CHAUHAN v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013-03-18

Alok Singh, Barin Ghosh

body2013
JUDGMENT Per: Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. 1. In the present appeal, appellant is assailing the judgment and order dated 25.07.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ 1st FTC, Haldwani, District Nainital whereby appellant was found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to serve rigorous life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 4 /25 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that PW1 lodged an FIR on 01.04.2005 with the police station Haldwani to the effect that his elder brother Dhirendra Singh Rawat, who was a Municipal Member, went to his shop at about 10.30 a.m.; Sagar aged, about 4 years and Himanshu Tiwari @ Hemu, aged about 10 years, had informed that Suman Rawat was lying unconscious on the floor. On receiving the information, he reached on the spot where he found dead body of Suman Rawat drenched with blood lying in the room. Household articles were scattered in the room and information about the looted articles would be given, later on, after verification. 3. During the course of investigation, police picked up and collected fingerprints from scene of occurrence. After investigation, police came to the conclusion that appellant along with Jitendra with an intention of loot had entered in the house of Suman Rawat / Dhirendra Singh Rawat and had committed the murder of Suman Rawat. Having investigated the matter, police submitted a chargesheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC as well as under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 4. After arrest of the accused, Investigating Officer had collected specimen fingerprints of accused appellant and sent the same for comparison with the fingerprints collected from the site of occurrence to Fingerprint Bureau, Crime Branch, Delhi Police. As per the report of Fingerprint Bureau, Delhi Police dated 10.06.2005, specimen fingerprints of the appellant and fingerprints collected from the site of occurrence were found matching. 5. As per the report of Fingerprint Bureau, Delhi Police dated 10.06.2005, specimen fingerprints of the appellant and fingerprints collected from the site of occurrence were found matching. 5. Accused Jitendra took a plea that he was juvenile on the date of incident, therefore, by order passed by Juvenile Board dated 01.09.2005, accused Jitendra was declared juvenile and vide order dated 10.05.2006, learned trial Judge separated the trial of the present case from the case of Jitendra and forwarded the case of Jitendra to Juvenile Court. 6. From the side of prosecution, 13 witnesses were examined. PW7 Himanshu Tiwari, who was at the time of incident aged about 10 years and at the time of appearing in the witness box was aged about 12 years, stated that on 01.04.2006 at about 01.30 p.m. while he was washing his hands, after taking lunch in verandah, he had seen appellant as well as Jitendra were entering into the house of his uncle Dhirendra Singh Rawat, husband of Suman Rawat. He further stated that at about 2.30 p.m. when he was going to Sagar’s house, he saw both of accused were coming out from his uncle’s house (Dhirendra Singh Rawat) with one bag in their hand. He identified the appellant in courtroom by saying that he was the person, who was seen by him going and coming out from his uncle’s house, along with Jitendra. 7. Before recording the statement of PW7, a child witness, the trial Judge by asking different questions has satisfied himself that master Himanshu Tiwari, aged about 12 years, has sound understanding of things and is capable of giving statements. 8. We have carefully perused the statement of Himanshu Tiwari, a child witness. We find that his statements are reliable beyond doubt. His statement coupled with report of Fingerprint Bureau are sufficient to prove that appellant was the person, who had entered into the house of Suman Rawat at about 01.30 p.m. and had committed murder of Suman Rawat with the help of Jitendra. 9. Not only this PW3 Saurabh Bisht, who was servant of Dhirendra Singh Rawat, has stated, on oath, that on 30.08.2005 both the accused persons came to the shop of Dhirendra Singh Rawat and asked him that at what time Dhirendra Singh Rawat comes to the shop and till what time, he remains in the shop. 9. Not only this PW3 Saurabh Bisht, who was servant of Dhirendra Singh Rawat, has stated, on oath, that on 30.08.2005 both the accused persons came to the shop of Dhirendra Singh Rawat and asked him that at what time Dhirendra Singh Rawat comes to the shop and till what time, he remains in the shop. When he asked to wait for Dhirendra Singh Rawat or to see him at his residence, both of them left the shop. 10. There is one another aspect of the matter i.e. the statement of Dr. Dharam Prakash Yadav PW2, who was Lecturer of Law to the effect that Jitendra along with appellant had approached him on 14.04.2005 and had stated that Jitendra committed a sin by murdering his own aunt (mother’s sister), therefore, he wanted to speak with Dhirendra Singh Rawat, so that he may forgive him. 11. There is no explanation by the appellant, as to why he had gone to the house Suman Rawat and as to how, his fingerprints were found in the house of Suman Rawat. 12. From the above discussion, we find that on 30.03.2005, both the accused must have done recce, first and thereafter, entered into the house of Dhirendra Singh Rawat in his absence with an object of loot and had committed murder of Suman Rawat but failed to steal anything because they were not able to break the locker of Almirah, which was found jammed. 13. Scientific evidence i.e. fingerprints report as well as statements of PW3 servant and PW7 Himanshu Tiwari would suggest that he was the appellant along with Jitendra, who entered in the house of Suman Rawat and had committed her murder, therefore, we find absolutely no force in the appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 14. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court below for information along with lower court record.