Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 557 (UTT)

State of Uttaranchal v. Deep Chand Joshi

2013-08-27

U.C.DHYANI

body2013
Judgment : 1. An F.I.R. was lodged by PW1 Smt. Durga Devi, against accused-respondent Deep Chand Joshi and others on 21.12.1998 at 07:40 A.M., in P.S. Ramnagar, District Nainital for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 452, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(3)(10)(15) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. As per the complaint (Ext. Ka-1), on 20.12.1998 at 09:30 P.M., accused-respondent came to PW1’s house alongwith some other persons, who were armed with sticks, knife and country made pistol. Accused-respondent assaulted PW1 and PW2 with sticks, as a consequences of which, PW1 and PW2 sustained injuries. Accused-respondent also threatened them with dire consequences. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused for the selfsame offences. Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 452, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was framed against the accused-respondent, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 2) PW1 Durga Devi, PW2 Bhupal Ram, PW3 Dr. S.D. Pant and PW4 Darshan Lal (C.O.) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that he was falsely implicated in this case on account of a dispute over a piece of land. He said that PW1 and PW2 wanted to forcibly took possession of a land which was adjacent to their house. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Special Sessions Judge exonerated the accused of the charge levelled against him, vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2001. Aggrieved against the same, present Government Appeal was preferred by the State. 3) Prosecution led the evidence through PW1. She said that accused-respondent was known to her prior to this incident. On the fateful day, at 9:00 P.M., when she was at her home, accused-respondent came alongwith some other miscreants, whose faces were veiled. They wanted to take possession of the land adjoining their house. When PW1 stopped them from doing the same, accused-respondent inflicted blows of sticks on PW1 and PW2. Both PW1 and PW2 sustained injuries. Accused-respondent alongwith others threatened PW1 and PW2 with dire consequences. 4) In her cross-examination, PW1 said that she was an illiterate lady. Accused-respondent did not cover his face. The report was got typed by her in Tehsil. When PW1 stopped them from doing the same, accused-respondent inflicted blows of sticks on PW1 and PW2. Both PW1 and PW2 sustained injuries. Accused-respondent alongwith others threatened PW1 and PW2 with dire consequences. 4) In her cross-examination, PW1 said that she was an illiterate lady. Accused-respondent did not cover his face. The report was got typed by her in Tehsil. Accused did not permit her to come out of her house till morning. Her clothes were stained with blood. Accused- respondent did not lodge report against her. She admitted in the cross examination that she had a dispute with accused-respondent over a piece of land. PW1 said that whereas she sustained injuries, PW2 sustained fracture. She did not inflict blow on accused- respondent in retaliation. 5) PW2 Bhupal Ram supported PW1 and said that accused-respondent lived 100 fts. away from his house. On 20.12.1998, at 09:30 P.M., accused- respondent brought chapper (thatch) in tractor-trolley. He was accompanied by several persons. PW1 stopped him from doing so. Accused-respondent pushed PW1 and assaulted her. Accused-respondent also assaulted PW2 with sticks, as a consequence of which, PW2 sustained fracture on his left hand. Accused-respondent said that he was a Ward Member and if PW2 dared to lodge report against him, he would have to face the consequences. Accused persons went away at 07:00 A.M. PW2 went to the police in the morning. The police removed the chapper. 6) In his cross-examination, PW2 said that disputed land was Nazul land. He gave the description of the disputed land. Many other questions were asked to PW2 in the cross-examination. PW2 further said that accused respondent gave 3-4 blows of sticks each on PW1 and PW2. Accused persons stopped PW1 and PW2 in the night from approaching police. 7) The incident allegedly took place on 20.12.1998 in the night around 09:30 P.M. The F.I.R. was lodged on the next day at 07:40 A.M. The distance between the place of incident and the police station concerned was half a km. There was delay in lodging the F.I.R. The fact that the accused persons stopped PW1 and PW2 from approaching the police in the night, appears to be an afterthought, for, if the accused persons stopped them from going to the police station in the night, they would still have prevented them (PW1, PW2) from going to police station on the next day also. It looked difficult that accused-respondent, along with others, who came in tractor-trolley, managed to stay at the disputed site throughout the night. 8) It also looked improbable that a known person will keep himself open (without covering his face) and other unknown persons will keep there faces veiled. It appears that all the accused persons covered their faces in order to conceal their identity and since a dispute was going on with accused-respondents, therefore PW1 and PW2 named him in the F.I.R. The language employed in the complaint, does not appear to be the language of an illiterate woman. It appears that the incident did not take place in the manner, as was indicated by PW1 and PW2 in their examination-in-chief. 9) Although PW3 proved the injury reports of PW1 and PW2 and supported prosecution story, but also admitted in the cross-examination that accused-respondent also sustained incised wound and abrasion on his person on 20.12.1998 in the night. Injury no. 1 sustained by the accused was caused by sharp edged weapon and injury no. 2 was sustained by a blunt object. Both were fresh in duration. Accused-respondent was medically examined on 20.12.1998, at 11:00 P.M. Although a copy of the injury report was not filed on record, yet the contents of the same were proved by PW3 affirming that accused-respondent too received injuries. PW1 sustained contusions and abrasions. PW2 sustained contusions. Their injuries were examined on 21.12.1998, at around 08:00 A.M. The injuries sustained by both were simple in nature and about half day old. PW2 also sustained fracture on his left radius. Thus, PW1, PW2 and accused-respondent sustained injuries at almost the same time, but PW1 and PW2 did not furnish satisfactory explanation to the injuries of accused-respondent. No independent witness was examined despite the fact that a tractor-trolley loaded with hooligans came to commit the crime. In such a situation, it is difficult to believe that no person of locality came on the spot. Enmity is a double-edged weapon. One can be falsely implicated and one can really cause injury to other person. Because of such enmity between the parties the possibility of both cannot be ruled out. 10) In such a situation, learned trial court did not commit any mistake in acquitting the accused- respondent, giving him benefit of reasonable doubt. Enmity is a double-edged weapon. One can be falsely implicated and one can really cause injury to other person. Because of such enmity between the parties the possibility of both cannot be ruled out. 10) In such a situation, learned trial court did not commit any mistake in acquitting the accused- respondent, giving him benefit of reasonable doubt. When two views are possible, then the one which is in favour of the accused, should be accepted. No interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order. 11) Government Appeal thus fails, and is dismissed.