Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 722 (UTT)

Urmila v. State of Uttarakhand

2013-11-16

U.C.DHYANI

body2013
JUDGMENT : U. C. Dhyani, J. 1. PW1 Smt. Urmila, w/o late Sukhpal Singh wrote a complaint (Ex.Ka-1) to S.O. Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar on 15.02.2000, which was registered as case crime no.47A/2000 at Police Station Jaspur on 15.02.2000 at 3:30 PM for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC against the accused persons, namely, Chatrapal, Punit and Rampal Singh. It was alleged in the FIR that the incident took place on 10.02.2000 at 9:00 AM. The distance between the place of incident and the police station was about 9 km. The FIR was lodged after a lapse of 5 days and hence, there appears to be delay in lodging FIR, subject to furnishing proper explanation by the informant or her witnesses. 2. Investigation began on the basis of said first information report. After investigation of the case, the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it’s case, charges against Chatrapal, Punit and Rampal Singh were framed for the offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 3. PW1 Smt. Urmila, PW2 Rajesh, PW3 Virendra Singh and PW4 Suresh Singh were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr. P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. 4. After conclusion of the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge / F.T.C., Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, vide judgment and order dated 23.05.2006, exonerated the accused persons of the charge leveled against them. Aggrieved against the same, present criminal revision was preferred by the informant. 5. In the FIR, PW1 wrote that on 10.02.2000 her brothers-in-law, namely, Rajesh, Virendra and Brijesh were basking in the sun at the rooftop. At around 9:00 AM, Chatrapal, Punit and Rampal Singh fired upon them with the intention of killing them in the presence of Dharmveer s/o Shankar. Rajesh, Virendra and Brijesh withdrew and concealed themselves behind the boundary wall and escaped unhurt. A few months ago, Chatrapal, Rampal Singh and Narendra committed murder of Sukhlaal (informant’s husband). They were released on bail. At around 9:00 AM, Chatrapal, Punit and Rampal Singh fired upon them with the intention of killing them in the presence of Dharmveer s/o Shankar. Rajesh, Virendra and Brijesh withdrew and concealed themselves behind the boundary wall and escaped unhurt. A few months ago, Chatrapal, Rampal Singh and Narendra committed murder of Sukhlaal (informant’s husband). They were released on bail. They fired upon brothers-in-law of the informant, but they did not sustain any injury. The FIR could not be lodged in time out of fear of the accused persons. PW1, in her examination-in-chief, supported the prosecution story and proved the complaint (Ex.Ka-1). Her examination-in-chief is almost the verbatim reproduction of the contents of FIR and, therefore, the same is not being reproduced here to avoid repetition. 6. In the cross-examination, she said that she did not know whether Vinod received pellets or not. She also did not know as to how many fires were made by the accused persons. She did not see the impressions of bullets on the boundary wall of the roof. She further admitted that Rajesh and Virendra were facing a criminal trial. She wrote the complaint on her own. 7. PW2 Rajesh supported the version of PW1 and said that the incident took place on 10.02.2000 at 9:00 PM. The accused persons threatened Virendra, Brijesh and him (PW2) that they would be killed, if they dared to do paravi in the criminal case instituted against them. According to PW2, accused persons fired upon them, but they did not receive any injury. The report was lodged by PW1. 8. In the cross-examination, PW2 said that the houses of the accused persons were situated at a distance of 52-55 paces from the PW2’s house. All three accused persons were armed. PW2 could not reveal as to how the accused persons fired upon them? PW2 fled away alongwith others and concealed themselves in a jungle for 3-4 days and only then an FIR was lodged. 9. PW3 Virendra Singh also supported the prosecution story and said that the accused persons fired upon them with the intention of killing them and they also threatened PW1, PW2 and PW3 with dire consequences. Accused persons were inimical to PW1, PW2 and PW3. The report could be lodged only after 5 days of the incident. The bullets fired by the accused persons did not hit the boundary wall. Accused persons were inimical to PW1, PW2 and PW3. The report could be lodged only after 5 days of the incident. The bullets fired by the accused persons did not hit the boundary wall. Accused persons did not sustain any injury. PW4 was the Investigating Officer of this case. 10. As has been stated above, the incident was alleged to have been taken on 10.02.2000 at 9:00 AM and the same was reported in the police station concerned after 5 days, i.e., on 15.02.2000 at 3:30 PM. There was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and no satisfactory explanation was given by PW1, PW2 and PW3 in this regard. The prosecution witnesses said that they (PW2 & PW3) fled away from the house, as they were too much terrorized by the said incident. They further said that they kept themselves concealed in a jungle for 3-4 days. The explanation offered by them was not satisfactory. It is difficult to believe that PW2 and PW3 would have fled away from their house, took shelter in the jungle for 3-4 days and would have come after a span of 5 days. This explanation is not acceptable in view of the fact that PW2 and PW3 did not sustain any injury on their body. They were not hit by the fire of accused persons. When PW1 could remain at home, why not PW2 and PW3 also? When PW1 remained at home, why did she not lodge the FIR immediately after the incident? 11. It is an admitted fact that PW2 and PW3 did not sustain injuries. It was alleged that the accused persons fired upon them with country made pistols. There was no indication that the bullets/pellets, which emanated from the country made pistols, hit the boundary wall of the roof of the house of informant. Empty cartridges or used shells of the bullets/pellets were also not recovered. The enmity between the parties is admitted. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that the accused persons fired upon PW2 and PW3 with the intention of killing them. 12. The oral testimony tendered by PW1, PW2 and PW3 does not inspire confidence. Their testimony was not at all acceptable to hold the accused persons guilty of the offences for which they were charged. The armaments by which the accused persons fired upon PW2 and PW3 were also not recovered. 12. The oral testimony tendered by PW1, PW2 and PW3 does not inspire confidence. Their testimony was not at all acceptable to hold the accused persons guilty of the offences for which they were charged. The armaments by which the accused persons fired upon PW2 and PW3 were also not recovered. The trial court was correct in exonerating the accused persons of the charge leveled against them. 13. Learned trial court discussed and appreciated the prosecution evidence correctly. Learned trial court, therefore, committed no mistake in holding that the prosecution was not able to prove it’s case against the accused-respondents beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. This Court also assessed the prosecution evidence independently to come to the conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove it’s case against the accused-respondents. The trial court, therefore, rightly acquitted the accused-respondents of the charges leveled against them. No interference is, thus, called for in the impugned judgment and order. 14. Criminal revision preferred by the informant-revisionist is, therefore, dismissed. 15. Let the lower court record alongwith a copy of the judgment be sent back to the Court below.