Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 349 (UTT)

TRILOK NATH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2014-09-04

ALOK SINGH, SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) 1. Present appeal is preferred assailing the judgment and order passed by Sessions Judge, Bageshwar dated 5.2.2010 in S.T. No. 04 of 2009, whereby appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and 201 IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of making payment to undergo additional imprisonment of one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC; to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. 2. In brief, case of the prosecution, inter alia, is that PW 1 lodged an FIR on 4.11.2008 at P.S. Bageshwar stating therein that on the previous day i.e. 3.1.2008, the appellant/accused came to the house of PW 1; asked Manoj Nath (deceased) to accompany him to inquire about the illness of his (appellant’s) son; Manoj Nath (deceased) went along with the appellant, however, did not come back on 3.11.2008; next day PW 1 went to the house of the appellant to make inquiry about the whereabouts of his son (deceased); whereupon the appellant informed PW 1 that his son (deceased) left the company of the appellant in the noon of 3.11.2008 saying that he would be going to purchase vegetables from the shop near Kanda Taxi Stand and thereafter he did not see him. 3. Having investigated the matter, police submitted chargesheet, whereupon charges were framed against the appellant punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 364 IPC. 4. To prove the prosecution story, prosecution has examined the informant Kamal Nath, PW 1, Diwan Nath, PW 2, Champa Devi, PW 3, Om Prakash PW 4, Dr. D.S. Nabiyal, PW 5, Gopal Nath, PW 6, Arjun Singh Bhakuni, PW 7, SI Rami Rami, PW 8, Tara Dutt Kapri, PW 9 and SSI Diwan Singh Bisht, PW 10, and thereafter statements of accused/appellant were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. 5. Learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC, however, was pleased to convict and sentence the accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, as stated hereinabove. Hence, the appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellant and Mr. A.S. Gill, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Milind Raj, learned Brief Holder for the State, and have carefully perused the record. 7. Hence, the appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellant and Mr. A.S. Gill, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Milind Raj, learned Brief Holder for the State, and have carefully perused the record. 7. As per the statement of PW 1, namely, Kamal Nath (informant), appellant came to his house in the morning of 3.11.2008 and asked his son to accompany him (appellant), whereupon both of them (appellant as well as deceased) left the house, however, the deceased did not return in the evening of 3.11.2008. On 4.11.2008, PW 1 went to the house of the accused/appellant and inquired about the whereabouts of his son, namely, Manoj Nath. Accused/appellant informed PW 1 that his son (deceased) left his company in the noon of 3.11.2008 saying that he would be going to purchase vegetables from the shop near Kanda Taxi Stand and thereafter he did not see him. 8. Dead body of Manoj Nath was recovered from the ditch and as per the statement of PW 5 Dr. D.S. Nabiyal head injury could be possible by fall. 9. PW 4 Om Prakash has stated that in the noon of 3.11.2008, Manoj Nath (deceased) came to his shop and left the shop leaving one packet in the shop saying that he would be coming back after some time and, at that time, he was alone and was not accompanied by the appellant. 10. In our considered opinion, in view of the statement of PW 4, last seen evidence to the effect that appellant as well as deceased were seen together before the death of Manoj Nath (deceased) has vanished. Therefore, it would be highly doubtful to hold the appellant guilty only on the basis of the evidence that deceased left his house along with the appellant. 11. Consequently, impugned judgment and order does not sustain in the eyes of law. In the net result, appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned judgment and order is hereby set aside. 12. Appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His personal bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 13. Let a copy of this judgment along with LCR be forwarded to the learned Trial Court for information.