Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 360 (UTT)

ISAM SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013-06-20

U.C.DHYANI

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) Informant Isam Singh lodged a first information report, on 10.06.1995, at 9:30 a.m., at PS Laksar, Haridwar, against Kulwant Singh, Billa, Gurinder Kaur, Harjeet Kaur and Premjeet Kaur, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 308, and 504 IPC, which was registered as case crime no. 75 of 1995. After the investigation, a charge sheet (Ext. Ka-5) for the offense punishable under Sections 323, 308 and 504 IPC was submitted only against Billa. Subsequently, co-accused Kulwant, Gurinder Singh, Premjeet Kaur, Harjeet Kaur were summoned to face the trial in respect of the said offences, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 2. Since the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial commenced and prosecution opened it’s case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 308/34 and 504 IPC were framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As has been said above, the charge sheet was submitted only against accused Billa and rest of the accused were summoned by the trial court under Section 319 IPC. 3. PW1 Isam Singh, PW2 Manoj, PW3 Sahid, PW4 Sat Kumar, PW 5 Doctor Braham Singh, PW6 Brahm Singh, PW7 SI Rambeer Singh Solanki and PW 8 Constable Lakshmi Chand were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. DW1 Ratan Singh was examined in defence. 4. PW1 Isam Singh supported the prosecution story. He said that a dispute regarding a piece of land was there between the parties. The accused persons instituted a case of assault against him, in which he was exonerated. The present incident took place on 12.03.1995. Sugarcane crop was standing on the field. PW1 was going to his field on a tractor trolley. His brother Brahm Singh and Manoj were working on the field. Accused persons Kulwant Singh, Gurinder Kaur, Billa, Premjeet Kaur and Harjeet Kaur were present in their field, which was situated nearby. When PW1 went to his field, all the accused persons hurled abuses at him. Kulwant was armed with tabal (a sharp edged weapon), Billa was equipped with iron rod and the rest of the accused persons were armed with sticks. When PW1 went to his field, all the accused persons hurled abuses at him. Kulwant was armed with tabal (a sharp edged weapon), Billa was equipped with iron rod and the rest of the accused persons were armed with sticks. PW1 sustained injuries and he became unconscious. Braham Singh and Manoj came to save PW1. The accused persons assaulted them with the instruments, which they were carrying. Belu, Sat Kumar and Sandeep came and intervened. Accused Kulwant Singh also pressed the neck of PW1 with his foot. PW1 was taken to Government Hospital. He remained admitted there up to 15.03.1995. When he went to lodge the first information report, the report was not lodged. On 20.03.1995, he prepared a report and submitted the same in the Court of ACJM. He proved his report (Ext. Ka-1). He wanted to give the application to Dy. S.P., but since the Dy. S.P. was not available, therefore, he could not. The Dy. S.P., was only available on 29.04.1995. He also proved his application (Ext. Ka-2). Although, he wrote the names of all the accused in the application, but the charge sheet was submitted only against Billa. It was only on the basis of examination-in-chief of PW1 that the other accused persons were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 5. When PW1 was cross-examined, he admitted that a dispute of land was going on between them. Kulwant instituted a case of assault against him, in which he was exonerated. In the cross-examination, he said that Kulwant Singh was father of Billa. One of the accused was Kulwant’s wife and two accused persons were his daughters. The description of land was also enquired from PW1 in his cross-examination. Ext. Ka-2 was given with the same facts, as were described in Ext. Ka-1. In the cross-examination, he also admitted that Ext. Ka-1 and Ext. Ka-2 contained the same date i.e. 09.04.1995. PW1 also admitted that Ext. Ka-1 and Ext.Ka-2 were prepared on the same day i.e. on 20.03.1995. It was also his admission that when he moved an application before the Court concerned on 20.03.1995, he did not make a mention of the application, which was addressed by him to the Deputy Superintend of Police. [It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that this fact was concealed by PW 1 with ulterior motive. It was also his admission that when he moved an application before the Court concerned on 20.03.1995, he did not make a mention of the application, which was addressed by him to the Deputy Superintend of Police. [It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that this fact was concealed by PW 1 with ulterior motive. The Magistrate had already issued directions for registering the complaint case, when Ext. Ka-1 was moved by PW1 before the Court]. PW1 also said in the cross-examination that the quarrel took place on the boundary of his field and not in the field of Kulwant Singh. [The investigating officer prepared site plan, in which the place of occurrence was different]. Whereas according to PW1, the incident took place on the boundary of his field, the investigating officer has shown that the assault took place in the field of accused Kulwant Singh. PW1 also said that he did not see that the injuries which were sustained by Kulwant Singh were caused by Billa. Many a people were working on the field when the incident took place. Shishpal Jogi and Telu appeared on the scene. Later on, PW1 came to know that the accused kept themselves concealed in their field and therefore, their presence was not noticed by any witness. He became unconscious when he was assaulted. A suggestion was put to him that on 12.03.1995, at 10:00-11:00 a.m., he assaulted Kulwant Singh and trespassed into his field. He denied the suggestion that he inflicted blow of patal/sickle, Manoj and Brahm Singh inflicted blow of sticks on Kulwant Singh, who was examined by Medical Officer. He remained in the hospital for about 15 days. 6. PW2 Manoj, in his examination-in-chief, said that on 12.03.1995, when he was working in his field, accused persons abused his father and also assaulted with equipments /arms, which they were carrying. PW2’s father sustained injuries. The injured was taken to hospital. In the cross-examination, the location of the field, where the incident took place, was asked. PW2 gave the description of the place of occurrence. PW2 also said that he did not notice the presence of accused persons on their fields in which the crop was standing. When PW2 reached on the place of occurrence, the accused persons had already assaulted PW2’s father, who had become unconscious and was taken to the hospital in tractor. 7. PW2 gave the description of the place of occurrence. PW2 also said that he did not notice the presence of accused persons on their fields in which the crop was standing. When PW2 reached on the place of occurrence, the accused persons had already assaulted PW2’s father, who had become unconscious and was taken to the hospital in tractor. 7. PW2 said that he along with his uncle was assaulted. Billa and Kulwant Singh were not assaulted by PW1 or PW2. He pleaded ignorance as to whether Billa and Kulwant Singh also sustained injuries or not. He denied that PW1 or PW2 assaulted Billa and Kulwant, but he admitted that Billa and Kulwant also got themselves medically examined in the Government Hospital, Laksar on the same day and at the same time. The injuries sustained by PW1 and PW2 were medically examined. 8. PW3 Sahid said that an altercation took place between Kulwant Singh and Isam Singh. Thereafter, they assaulted each other with sticks. Kulwant was carrying tabal, Billa was carrying iron rod and the girls were carrying sticks. Both the sides were assaulting each other. 9. PW4 Sat Kumar said that on the fateful day, at 11:00 a.m., when PW4 was going from village to Laksar, he saw that Kulwant, Billa, Gurinder and two girls were assaulting Isam Singh with gandasa, tabal and iron rod. Isam Singh fell on the ground. Brahm Singh and Manoj reached on the place of occurrence. In the cross-examination, he said that he started from his house at 10:30 a.m. on bicycle. Laksar was situated at a distance of six kilometers from his house. In the cross-examination, he said that when he reached Isam Singh, assault had already taken place. PW4 saw Isam Singh in an unconscious state. PW4 also saw that Brahm Singh and Manoj also sustained injuries. PW4 did not see the injuries sustained by Billa and Kulwant Singh. He was not aware whether anybody caused injuries to Billa and Kulwant or not? He admitted that the injured persons Billa and Kulwant were taken to hospital. Wearing apparels of the injured were stained with blood. PW 6 Brahm also supported prosecution story. In the cross-examination, he said that he lodged the report in the PS concerned after three days. The investigating Officer took his statement after three months. Isam Singh remained admitted in the hospital for three days and so was Manoj. Wearing apparels of the injured were stained with blood. PW 6 Brahm also supported prosecution story. In the cross-examination, he said that he lodged the report in the PS concerned after three days. The investigating Officer took his statement after three months. Isam Singh remained admitted in the hospital for three days and so was Manoj. He said that he did not see any injury sustained by Kulwant Singh or Billa. He denied that PW1, PW2 or PW6 assaulted Kulwant Singh and Billa. The earth was stained with blood, which earth was shown to the investigating officer. 10. PW7 Ramveer Singh Solanki, SI, was the investigating officer, who admitted in the cross-examination that Kulwant Singh and Billa were also assaulted. He also admitted that the wearing apparels were not taken by him. The investigating officer also said that he did not find involvement of anybody in the crime, except Billa. PW8 Constable Lakshmi Chand was a formal witness. 11. PW5 Dr. Brahm Singh examined the injuries of the injured Isam Singh on 12.03.1995, at 12:45 p.m. He also examined Manoj son of Isam Singh on the same day. PW 5 also examined Brahm Singh and proved the medical reports of all the injured persons. In the cross-examination, PW5 admitted that Arvind and Kulwant Singh were also examined by him. 12. When PW5 was summoned and examined as CW1. He said that he examined Kulwant Singh on 12.03.1995, at 11:30 a.m. CW1 proved the medical report of Kulwant Singh (Ext.Kha-1). CW1 also said that he examined injuries of Arvind Singh on the same day at 1:30 p.m. and proved Arvind Singh’s injury report as Ext. Kha-2. Thus according to PW 5/CW1 the members of both the sides received injuries, which injuries were medically examined on the same day and at almost the same time. 13. PW1, PW2 and PW 6 did not say in the course of their evidence that they inflicted injuries on Arvind Singh and Kulwant Singh. They denied having assaulted Kulwant Singh and Arvind Singh, although they admitted that both of them were medically examined on the same day in the same hospital, as was evident from the evidence of PW5 / CW1. The prosecution story suffered major set back on account of the fact that injuries sustained by the accused persons remained unexplained. They denied having assaulted Kulwant Singh and Arvind Singh, although they admitted that both of them were medically examined on the same day in the same hospital, as was evident from the evidence of PW5 / CW1. The prosecution story suffered major set back on account of the fact that injuries sustained by the accused persons remained unexplained. Learned trial court has given a description of the said fact with the support of certain rulings and came to the conclusion that the prosecution story became doubtful on the basis of this lacuna alone. 14. Another big lacuna in the prosecution story was that the first information report was lodged after about three months of considerable delay and the delay was not satisfactorily explained. The FIR was not lodged promptly or within a reasonable time. Learned trial court granted benefit of doubt to the accused persons on this ground also. 15. An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was also moved by the complainant before the Magistrate concerned, but when the application was given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the said fact was suppressed. There could not be two complaints in respect of one and the same incident. Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Haridwar has elaborately dealt with the evidence tendered by the prosecution and has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution story was not proved against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. This Court is also of the view that the incident did not take place in the manner as was indicated by PW1, PW2 and PW6. There was no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order. This Court is unable to take a view different from what was taken by the Court below. Criminal Revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.