Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 279 (UTT)

Dinesh Singh Koranga v. State of Uttarakhand

2013-05-23

ALOK SINGH

body2013
Judgment Alok Singh, J (Oral). Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2010 whereby learned Sessions Judge was pleased to hold the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo additional simple imprisonment of one year under Section 304 IPC. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that PW2 Meharban Singh lodged an FIR with police station Kapkot, District Bageshwar on 01.09.2010 at 06.10 p.m. stating therein that on 31.08.2010 at about 05.30 p.m., his daughter-in-law PW1 was working in front of her house, meanwhile, appellant teased her and used abusive language; his mother Smt. Gopli Devi came out; Gopli Devi and PW1 Geeta Koranga resisted the appellant; meanwhile, PW1 Geeta Koranga could manage to run inside the home; appellant started assaulting Gopli Devi by giving fist blow on the neck of Gopli Devi; having seen the appellant assaulting Gopli Devi, PW2, his son Ramesh Singh, his younger sister Rajanti Devi rushed towards the spot; appellant ran away from the spot; Gopli Devi on the way to Banlekha, succumbed to her injuries; neighbour Deepa Devi and Kunwar Singh, Ratan Singh also witnessed the incident. On the report of PW2, check FIR no. 494 of 2010 was registered. Postmortem was conducted on the body of Gopli Devi on 01.09.2010 and as per postmortem report, Gopli Devi died due to head injury. Having investigated the matter, police submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 294, 304 IPC. Learned trial court framed charges against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 294, 304 IPC. Appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. To prove the prosecution story, PW1 Geeta Koranga, PW2 Meharban Singh, PW3 Dr. D.P. Singh, PW4 Constable Madan Singh Bisht, PW5 SI Praveen Singh, PW5 SI Chanchal Sharma were examined and thereafter, statement of appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Having considered the entire material made available on record, the trial court was pleased to acquit the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 294 IPC, however, was pleased to hold appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC and sentenced the appellant, as narrated hereinbefore. Having considered the entire material made available on record, the trial court was pleased to acquit the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 294 IPC, however, was pleased to hold appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC and sentenced the appellant, as narrated hereinbefore. I have heard Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, ld. Amicus Curiae, for the appellant and Mr. P.S. Danu, Brief Holder for the State and have carefully perused the record. PW2 lodged the FIR, as per FIR, PW1 was working in open outside her house, where appellant started teasing her, meanwhile, deceased came out to resist the appellant, meanwhile PW1 could manage to run inside the house and thereafter, appellant started giving fist blows on the person of Gopli Devi. As per statement of PW1 Geeta Koranga, at the time of incident, she was present in the room; appellant entered in that room; appellant caught PW1 and attempted to rape her; on this PW1 started crying, meanwhile, Gopli Devi came in the room and saved PW1 from the clutches of appellant; appellant started running outside the room, he was chased by Gopli Devi and thereafter, appellant started beating Gopli Devi and Gopli Devi fell down and died on the spot. PW2, complainant did not narrate even a single word as stated in the FIR. He only stated that appellant caught his mother on the way and thereafter, thrown her on the road and the moment she tried to stand up, she immediately fell down and died while as per FIR version, Gopli Devi died on the way to Banlekha. There are major contradictions in FIR and in the statements of PW1 and PW2. Place and manner of occurrence and place of death of Smt. Gopli Devi are not consistent. Specific suggestion was given to PW1 and PW2 to the effect that old lady fell down on the road and received head injury due to falling on road therefore, she died. Same suggestion was given to PW3 Dr. D.P. Singh. PW3 stated injuries as sustained by the deceased, could be a result of falling on the rough and uneven surface. There is a delay of more than 24 hours in lodging the FIR and there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay. In view of the statement of PW3 Dr. Same suggestion was given to PW3 Dr. D.P. Singh. PW3 stated injuries as sustained by the deceased, could be a result of falling on the rough and uneven surface. There is a delay of more than 24 hours in lodging the FIR and there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay. In view of the statement of PW3 Dr. D.P. Singh, suggestion of defence that lady fell down on the road and received injury after felling down on the road cannot be ruled out. In my considered opinion, prosecution was not successful to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2010 is hereby set aside. Appellant is in jail. Let he be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court below for compliance along with lower court record.