Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 157 (UTT)

RAJNEESH ALIAS ALIBAKSH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013-03-19

Alok Singh, Barin Ghosh

body2013
JUDGMENT Per: Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. In the present appeal, judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ I F.T.C., Hardwar dated 19th July, 2008/21st July, 2008 in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2003 is under challenge, whereby learned trial court has found the appellant guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. as well as for an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and has sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, failing which to further undergo six months’ additional imprisonment under Section 302 of I.P.C. and further sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, failing which one month's additional imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that on 20th August, 2002 at about 09.00 P.M., Constable Om Pal Sharma (PW1), S.I. Ramawatar Singh Sankwal (PW2), Constable Sauraj Singh and Constable Kuldeep Singh were on checking duty near Lalta Rao Bridge. All of sudden, they have noticed that two people are fighting with each other. Having seen them fighting, police personnel rushed towards them. Meanwhile, appellant took out his Tamancha and shot the other person and having seen the police personnel, appellant started running. PW2 has directed PW1 to take the injured immediately to the hospital and started chasing the appellant alongwith other police personnel. PW1 took the injured in rickshaw to the Government Hospital, where doctors have declared him brought dead. Thereafter, PW1 went to the Kotwali and has lodged report Ext.Ka-18. PW2 could apprehend the appellant alongwith Tamancha near the Himalayan Depot Gali. From his checking, two live cartridges of 315 bore and a country made Pistol were recovered. Country made pistol and live cartridges, so recovered, were kept in a sealed cover under surveymohar and thereafter, appellant was taken to the Police Station and F.I.R. Ext. Ka-16 was got registered by PW2. Investigation was carried out by S.I. Surendra Pal Verma (PW4). Having investigated the matter, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and having obtained necessary permission from the District Magistrate, Hardwar, another charge-sheet for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act was submitted against the appellant. Investigation was carried out by S.I. Surendra Pal Verma (PW4). Having investigated the matter, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and having obtained necessary permission from the District Magistrate, Hardwar, another charge-sheet for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act was submitted against the appellant. Both the trials were consolidated and thereafter, having examined the materials made available on the record, learned trial Judge has passed the judgment and order under appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. Bhuwanesh Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent and have carefully perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is no public witness in the present case. Therefore, no reliance should have been placed on the statements of PW1 and PW2. 5. In our considered opinion, PW1 and PW2, while appearing in the witness box, have stated in so many words that when they were on the duty near Lalta Rao bridge alongwith other constables, they have noticed the appellant quarreling with Vishal. Soon thereafter police party rushed towards them, however, meanwhile appellant took out his Tamancha and shot Vishal dead. PW1 has taken the injured to the hospital in the cycle rickshaw, where he was declared brought dead and thereafter, PW1 has lodged the F.I.R., while PW2 after chasing the appellant could apprehend him alongwith Pistol and two live cartridges near the Himalayan Depot Gali and thereafter, brought him to Kotwali and got lodged another F.I.R. (Ext.A-16). As per the statement of Dr. S.C. Srivastava (PW3), Vishal had died due to gunshot injury, which he had received near the left forehead. 6. In the present case, since PW1 and PW2 were present on the spot and their presence is not disputed and they have watched the incident, therefore, they shall be deemed witnesses in their own capacity and they should not be considered as police witnesses. Their respective statements stood corroborated by the medical evidence. There is nothing on record to suggest as to why PW1 and PW2 would have falsely implicated the appellant. In view of the statements of eyewitnesses, namely, PW1 and PW2, as corroborated by the medical evidence, we find absolutely no reason to interfere in the reasoning and observations made by the learned trial court. There is nothing on record to suggest as to why PW1 and PW2 would have falsely implicated the appellant. In view of the statements of eyewitnesses, namely, PW1 and PW2, as corroborated by the medical evidence, we find absolutely no reason to interfere in the reasoning and observations made by the learned trial court. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 7. Let lower court records be sent back to the court below alonwith a copy of this judgment.