Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 178 (UTT)

GANESH BAHADUR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2014-04-11

BARIN GHOSH, V.K.BISHT

body2014
JUDGMENT (Per:V.K. Bist, J.) By the judgment under appeal, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for one year has been awarded. This appeal has been preferred by the convicts through the Superintendent of District Jail, Dehradun. 2. On 03.04.2010, the complainant Bishan Singh (PW-1) lodged a report with the police station Joshimath, District Chamoli with the assertions that he is a contractor at Suraidota. On the very day, at about 3:30 p.m. his labourers, namely, Ram Bahadur (PW-3) and Jagdish Bahadur came to him and informed him that inside their room, the accused persons Kham Bahadur and Ganesh Bahadur, were beating Padam Bahadur. The room was bolted from inside. On receiving the information, the complainant, alongwith Prem Singh (PW-2), Mohan Singh (SARPANCH) and others reached at the site, where they heard the sound of beating. They asked to open the door; knocked the same and when the door was not opened, they broke it open and saw that Padam Bahadur was lying on the floor and the accused were beating him with fists and boots. The complainant intervened and separated the aggressors from Padam Bahadur. Padam Bahadur, who was unable even to speak, badly injured, bleeding from his mouth, was taken to Police Station in the vehicle of PW-2 Prem Singh. It was also reported that both the accused were kept in captive at Suraidota. 3. On the basis of said complaint, an FIR was registered under Section 307 IPC. Padam Bahadur was taken to Community Health Centre, Joshimath, where PW-4 Dr. Rachna Dimri conducted his medical examination at 8:15 p.m. on the very day. On examination, the doctor found that there were blue-black bruise on lower and middle part on the back; bleeding from lips and left eye was found blocked. The doctor opined that duration of injuries was four hours old, which would have been caused by blunt and hard object. For further opinion, the patient was referred for orthopedic examination. 4. Investigation of the case was entrusted to PW-8 Sub-Inspector Shyam Lal, who started the investigation. The doctor opined that duration of injuries was four hours old, which would have been caused by blunt and hard object. For further opinion, the patient was referred for orthopedic examination. 4. Investigation of the case was entrusted to PW-8 Sub-Inspector Shyam Lal, who started the investigation. On 04.04.2010, on receiving information that injured Padam Bahadur, who was admitted in C.H.C. Joshimath, District Chamoli, succumbed to his injuries at 01:00 a.m. during his treatment. Thereafter, an offence under Section 302 IPC was added. The dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy and inquest was conducted. PW-5 Dr. Pawan Dwivedi found the following external injuries on the person of Padam Bahadur: “1. Abrasion on left side of face over maxilla 5 cm. x 3 cm., in size, reddish brown in colour. 2. Abrasion on nose 2 cm. x 1 cm. in size, reddish brown in colour. 3. Clotted blood on face, mouth, nasal circumference and over upper lip. 4. Abrasion on right knee joint, reddish brown in colour 1 cm. x 0.5 cm. in size. 5. Abrasion on left knee joint. Reddish brown in colour, 0.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. in size. 6. Contusion on back 5 cm. x 3 cm. in size. 7. Multiple abrasion on left side of neck 0.5 cm. x 1 cm. in size.” 5. On internal examination, the Doctor found clotted blood inside the scalp 5 cm. x 3 cm. in size, fracture of right parietal bone and clotted blood in brain 5 cm. x 4 cm. in size. Doctor opined that cause of death was due to shock and coma as a result of ante-mortem injuries. Autopsy report is Ext. A4 on record. 6. The investigation was transferred and was entrusted to PW-7 S.H.O. Chandra Lal Titiyal. During investigation, the accused persons were apprehended. After inspecting the spot, the I.O. prepared site plan and after satisfying other necessary formalities, it culminated into filing of charge sheet against the accused/appellants under section 342, 449, 302, 307 IPC. 7. As a result thereof, the trial commenced, the trial Court framed charge of offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. against the accused/appellants, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as eight witnesses. The accused/appellants did not produce any evidence in their defence. 7. As a result thereof, the trial commenced, the trial Court framed charge of offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. against the accused/appellants, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as eight witnesses. The accused/appellants did not produce any evidence in their defence. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. 8. We have heard Mr. G.S. Negi, Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Mr. D.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General for the State and have gone through the entire material available on record. 9. The question before us, as to whether on the date, time and place, the accused/appellants in furtherance of common intention, committed murder of Padam Bahadur and whether the judgment and order under appeal suffers from any illegality, infirmity or perversity. 10. First and foremost argument of learned Amicus- curiae for the appellants is that prosecution has miserably failed to show any motive or enmity behind the crime; no weapon or blunt object, by which the injuries, as found by the doctor on the person of the victim, was recovered from the site or from the possession of the accused. The I.O. did not collect any blood samples in respect of plain or bloodstained soil or took in his possession the bloodstained clothes of the victim; as alleged by the prosecution, the door was closed from inside at the time of committing the crime, but the I.O. did not take in possession the bolts and other broken articles, hence the omissions on the part of the I.O., are sufficient to annul the prosecution story. It is vehemently contended that there was police outpost at Suraidota, however, the matter was not reported there and it was lodged at police station Joshimath, but there is no reason assigned for lodgment of FIR at police station Joshimath. 11. Insofar as the argument in respect of motive is concerned, the accused/appellants could not show as to what was the reason to implicate them falsely, leaving the real culprits, therefore, this argument cannot be accepted and is rejected. In our view, when there is direct evidence, motive plays no role. 11. Insofar as the argument in respect of motive is concerned, the accused/appellants could not show as to what was the reason to implicate them falsely, leaving the real culprits, therefore, this argument cannot be accepted and is rejected. In our view, when there is direct evidence, motive plays no role. The question, therefore, in the present appeal, is whether, considering the ocular evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3, a careful person could conclude, for sure, that they were present at the time of incident, and accordingly, the evidence tendered by these witnesses, is direct evidence. Upon going through the evidence produced by the prosecution, it would make amply clear that after the incident was reported to the complainant, the complainant alongwith PW2 and PW3 and others ran towards the site, broke the door to open and saw that the accused/appellants were badly beating the victim with fists and boots and the victim, who was not capable even to speak, badly injured, bleeding profusely from mouth, was briskly taken to police station and thereafter, got admitted in the Community Health Centre and after few hours died. Evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused/appellants. Thus, it is concluded that there is no scope of interference with the conviction. The appellants were arrested from the place of occurrence as they were kept in confinement by the people of the locality. Their arrest from the place of incident; and their confinement at the place of incident was not challenged. 12. We, accordingly, conclude the matter and hold that, in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the case, as brought on record in the form of evidence by the prosecution, the trial Court had no other option but to convict the appellants in the manner they have been convicted by the judgment under appeal. Having regard to the conviction, we are of the view that the sentence awarded is commensurate with the conviction and, accordingly, there is no scope of interference with the judgment and sentence under appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 13. Let a copy of this judgment, be sent to the Superintendent of jail concerned and a copy, alongwith the Lower Court Records, be sent to the concerned trial Court.