Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 65 (UTT)

Pancham Singh v. State of Uttaranchal

2014-03-03

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
Judgment : PW2 Pravendra Prasad wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) on 15.12.1996 to Patti Patwari, Bamoth, against eight named accused, which complaint was registered on the selfsame day, at 04:00 P.M. The incident allegedly took place on 14.12.1996, at 04:45 P.M. The distance between the place of incident and the police station concerned was 32 kms. and hence there appeared to be no delay in lodging the FIR. After the investigation of the case, a charge-sheet was submitted against six accused persons, namely, Madho Singh, Jitendra Singh, Pancham Singh, Laxman Singh, Kalam Singh and Bhagat Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 147, 504, 506, 120B of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it’s case, charge for the offences punishable under Section 147 of IPC and Section 307 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC was framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Bhagat Singh died during the trial and hence case against him stood abated. 2) PW1 Sateshwar Prasad, PW2 Pravendra Prasad, PW3 Dr. Udai Singh Rajput, PW4 Lalita Prasad (Medical Officer), PW5 Ashok Kumar Pujari (Patwari) and PW6 Kalam Singh (Patwari) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was adduced in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court, i.e. Sessions Judge, Chamoli, vide judgment and order dated 08.01.2002, convicted accused Pancham Singh, Madho Singh, Laxman Singh, Kalam Singh and Jitender Singh under Section 147 of IPC and Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC. Each one of the convict was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month under Section 147 of IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo one months’ rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, each one of the convict was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. It was also directed that if the fine was realized a sum of Rs. 1,000/- each from each convict (total Rs. 5,000/-) be paid to the injured as compensation. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order, present criminal appeal was preferred. It was also directed that if the fine was realized a sum of Rs. 1,000/- each from each convict (total Rs. 5,000/-) be paid to the injured as compensation. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order, present criminal appeal was preferred. 3) Accused Madho Singh is reported to have died in the year 2011, as per the letter received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli. The criminal appeal filed on behalf of appellant Madho Singh is, therefore, abated. 4) PW1 supported the prosecution story. He stated that he deals in the business of selling iron rods and cement in Gochar. On 14.12.1996, at 04:30 P.M., when he was returning from Gochar to his house situated at Bamoth, accused Laxman Singh and Pancham Singh met him at Chatwa Peepal bridge. Both the accused followed him. Accused Kalam Singh and Bhagat Singh also met him on his way to his village. All the four accused persons assaulted PW1. Accused persons called Jitendra Singh, Madho Singh, Dhan Singh and Rakesh Singh, who also assaulted PW1. Accused Jitendra Singh was armed with an iron rod and accused Madho Singh was having lathi in his hands. All the accused persons assaulted PW1 with iron rod, lathi and stones. PW1 sustained injuries on his forehead. No public witness was present when accused persons assaulted PW1. When the incident was over, Lalita Prasad (PW4) came running to the place of incident alongwith his son, but by that time the assailants fled away. Accused persons had the intention to kill PW1. PW4 and his son took PW1 to Gochar Hospital, whereupon PW1 was given medical treatment. PW1’s son (PW2) lodged report of the said incident to the Patwari. Accused persons were inimical to PW1 over the election of Gram Pradhan. Bloodstained wearing apparels were given by PW1 to the pharmacist of Gochar Hospital. The Pharmacist handed over those clothes to the Patwari. PW1 was cross-examined, but nothing came in his cross-examination to suggest that he was telling a lie. In other words, nothing has come in the cross-examination of PW1 to suspect his testimony. The testimony of PW1 was acceptable. 5) PW2 also supported prosecution story and stated that on 14.12.1996, at around 04:30 P.M., when his father was returning from his shop to his house, accused persons assaulted him. According to PW2, PW1 sustained grievous injuries. In other words, nothing has come in the cross-examination of PW1 to suspect his testimony. The testimony of PW1 was acceptable. 5) PW2 also supported prosecution story and stated that on 14.12.1996, at around 04:30 P.M., when his father was returning from his shop to his house, accused persons assaulted him. According to PW2, PW1 sustained grievous injuries. PW2 took PW1 to the hospital, whereupon his injuries were examined. On 15.12.1996, PW2 wrote a complaint to the Patwari. PW2 also proved complaint (Ext. Ka-1) and proved the contents of the same. PW2 also stated that his father remained admitted at Gochar Hospital for 11-12 days. PW2 too was cross-examined, much to the discomfiture of the defence. 6) PW3 was the Medical Officer, who examined the injuries of PW1 on 14.12.1996, and found three lacerated wounds, one contusion and three abrasions in different parts of his person. PW3 opined that all the injuries sustained by PW1 were simple in nature, except injuries no. 1, 2 and 3. All the injuries were caused by blunt object. Patient was kept under observation. No supplementary report was filed. 7) PW4 too supported prosecution story. PW4 was the person, who took PW1 to Gochar Hospital, got him admitted, gave application to the Medical Officer, whereupon the injuries sustained by PW1 were examined. PW4 also proved the memo (Ext. Ka-3) of taking of the bloodstained wearing apparels of PW1. PW4 also proved memo (Ext. Ka-4) of taking of bloodstained stone. Thus the evidence of PW4 lends assurance to the prosecution story. 8) PW5 was the Investigating Officer of the case, who started the investigation of the case. Investigation of the case was later on handed over to PW6. PW6 concluded the investigation and submitted charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-9) against the accused persons. 9) The testimony rendered by PW1, PW2 and PW4 cannot be doubted. The injuries sustained by PW1 were examined and proved by PW3. In other words, PW3 (Medical Officer) corroborated ocular evidence tendered by the witnesses. PW5 started the investigation of the case and PW6 concluded the same by filing charge-sheet against the accused persons. Nothing is brought to the notice of this Court to indicate that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses should be disbelieved. 10) Prosecution evidence was appropriately dealt with by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order. PW5 started the investigation of the case and PW6 concluded the same by filing charge-sheet against the accused persons. Nothing is brought to the notice of this Court to indicate that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses should be disbelieved. 10) Prosecution evidence was appropriately dealt with by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order. Learned trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove it’s case against the accused-appellants beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. 11) This Court has also assessed the prosecution evidence independently to come to the same conclusion as was arrived at by learned trial court. 12) Learned counsel for the appellants stated that all the appellants remained in jail for about 20 days during the course of investigation, trial and during the pendency of the criminal appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the appellants are ready to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and prayed that since the appellants have already undergone a substantive part of the sentence awarded to them, therefore, they should be set free after imposing a sentence of the period already undergone by them alongwith payment of fine. 13) No interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below, so far as the conviction of the accused-appellants under Section 147 of IPC and Section 323 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC, recorded by it is concerned, but, so far as quantum of sentence is concerned, considering the nature of offences complained of against the appellants and proved against them, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is worth accepting. 14) Criminal appeal filed on behalf of accused-appellants is partly allowed to the extent of reduction in the quantum of sentence, which was awarded to them by the Court below. Whereas the conviction awarded to accused-appellants under Section 147 of IPC and Section 323 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC is affirmed, the sentence awarded to them is modified to the period already undergone by them alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. In case of default of payment of fine, the defaulter shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Appellants are granted a month’s time to deposit the amount of fine before the Sessions Judge, Chamoli. 5,000/- each. In case of default of payment of fine, the defaulter shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Appellants are granted a month’s time to deposit the amount of fine before the Sessions Judge, Chamoli. If the fine is not deposited within the period as directed by this Court, then each one of the appellant will undergo simple imprisonment for further period of 15 days. If the fine, as directed above, is realized from the accused-appellants, then a total sum of Rs. 5,000/- be paid to PW1 (injured) as compensation. 15) Accused-appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. They need not surrender (except in the event of non-payment of fine, for which learned Sessions Judge may pass fresh orders). 16) Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the lower court records be sent to the Court below for compliance.