Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 174 (UTT)

Bahadur Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2015-03-26

ALOK SINGH, SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
Judgment : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. The convicts/appellants Bahadur Singh (A1) and Harish Singh (A2) have preferred this appeal assailing the judgment and order dated 8.10.2010, rendered by Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No. 2/2006 holding the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 302, IPC, wherefor they have appropriately been sentenced. 2. The incident pertains to Crime No. 3/2005, Patwari Circle Lingurata, District Almora. First Information Report was lodged by the real brother of the deceased Mr. Pratap Singh (PW8) highlighting the facts that on 29.11.2005 at about 4 p.m., his brother Kailash Singh left to attend the marriage ceremony of the daughter of one Mr. Chandan Singh Negi in village Jamrari. While they were coming back to home having boarded in jeep No. UA04/5787, at about 6.30 p.m., the vehicle was not stopped at his house and the driver of the same carried that ahead towards Shera Ghat. Mr. Bahadur Singh and Harish Singh, both accused persons, of his own village, as well as PW1 Bhagwan Singh, PW2 Kundan Singh and PW3 Rajendra Singh were also present in the said jeep along with his brother Kailash Singh. As the vehicle was carried away towards Shera Ghat, his brother was kicked out by Bahadur Singh from the running vehicle. Soon after throwing him down away from the vehicle, the driver Harish Singh drove the jeep to run over his brother making him seriously injured. The vehicle was not got stopped. Rather, they escaped from the spot along with the vehicle. Thereafter Bhagwan Singh, Kundan Singh and Rajendra Singh brought his brother to home in another jeep No. UP02D/3701 and disclosed the sequence of the incident to the informant Pratap Singh, which was ratified by his own injured brother. The injured Kailash was soon carried to Almora for better treatment, but before reaching to the hospital, he breathed his last on the way. So, this FIR Ex. Ka-2 was lodged on 30.11.2005. Chik report whereof is Ex. Ka-3 implicating Bahadur Singh and Harish Singh for the offence of Section 302, IPC. 3. Inquest report Ex. Ka-4 was prepared on 30.11.2005 at 6 a.m. The witnesses recommended the matter for the post-mortem. So, autopsy was conducted on 30.11.2005 at 1.30 p.m. in the District Hospital, Almora, wherein the cause of death was ascertained to be due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 3. Inquest report Ex. Ka-4 was prepared on 30.11.2005 at 6 a.m. The witnesses recommended the matter for the post-mortem. So, autopsy was conducted on 30.11.2005 at 1.30 p.m. in the District Hospital, Almora, wherein the cause of death was ascertained to be due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. Following injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased: (1) Abraded contused wound present on front part of left forearm size 2 x 3 cm., brown colour, just below the back of elbow left, swelling present. (2) Abraded contused wound 1 x 1 cm. back of forearm, 2 cm. to back of elbow left. (3) Abraded wound present on lateral surface of left thigh 4 cm. x 5 cm., 11 cm. below to mid of left illiac crest bone. (4) Abraded contused wound present just below the left A.S. illiac spinal, size 6 cm. x 2 cm., brown colour. 4. Investigation culminated into submission of charge-sheet against both the accused persons for the offence indicated above. The charge was levelled accordingly. Accused persons were put on trial. In order to prove its version, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses, viz. PW-1 Bhagwan Singh, PW-2 Kundan Singh, PW-3 Rajendra Singh, PW-4 Dr. Mahesh Chandra, PW-5 Krishn Singh, PW-6 Dan Singh, PW-7 Pooran Singh, PW-8 Pratap Singh, PW-9 Smt. Geeta Devi and PW-10 Bahadur Singh. 5. Thereafter statement of accused persons under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein it was disclosed by both the accused persons that even the family of the deceased had accepted the incident to be a motor accident and because of this reason, the claim petition for compensation was also filed by the widow of the deceased. 6. We have heard Mr. R.S. Sammal, learned Counsel for the appellants, and Mr. A.S. Gill, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Bharadwaj, Brief Holder for the State. 7. Learned Counsel of the appellants has taken us to the statements of all the hostile witnesses PW1 to PW3, who were present in the jeep at the time of accident. None has supported the version of the prosecution in the manner it has been narrated in the FIR. Per contra, they have deposed that when the jeep reached near the place called Lingurata, the deceased Kailash Singh expressed his wish to get down from the vehicle. None has supported the version of the prosecution in the manner it has been narrated in the FIR. Per contra, they have deposed that when the jeep reached near the place called Lingurata, the deceased Kailash Singh expressed his wish to get down from the vehicle. So, along with Kailash Singh, all these witnesses also deboarded from the jeep and Bahadur Singh and Harish Singh proceeded ahead along with the jeep towards Shera Ghat. After 15 minutes, one canter (another vehicle) came from the direction of Shera Ghat towards Almora. Deceased Kailash Singh signalled to stop that canter. It was quite dark at that time. Canter driver did not stop his vehicle. So, the deceased tried to chase that moving vehicle. Thereafter they saw that the deceased Kailash Singh was lying fallen on the side of the road. Although these witnesses are the residents of the nearby village, but at the same time, the fact cannot be overlooked that none of them has supported the narration of the prosecution version, as has been adverted in the FIR. Their testimony was the most crucial one as only they were the eye-witnesses of the case. 8. PW4 Dr. Mahesh Chandra is the formal witness, who has proved injuries on the body of the deceased. PW5 Krishn Singh is the driver of another vehicle, which was used for bringing the deceased Kailash Singh to his home by none other but all these PW1 to PW3. He has ratified that Kailash Singh was left at his home by Bhagwan Singh, Kundan Singh and Rajendra Singh. He has also not disclosed anything which may be of some help to the prosecution. 9. PW6 Dan Singh is the driver of yet another vehicle by which Kailash Singh was being carried to Almora Hospital, but he breathed his last on the way itself. He, too, has not disclosed anything, which may give support to the prosecution version. PW7 Pooran Singh also did not depose any ocular version of the alleged incident. 10. PW8 Pratap Singh is the real brother of the deceased and he is the informant also. He is not an eye-witness and has narrated the version, as has been stated by him in the FIR, at the disclosure of his deceased brother Kailash Singh. So, the testimony of PW8 Pratap Singh, without any corroboration, cannot be made basis for upholding the conviction of the appellants. He is not an eye-witness and has narrated the version, as has been stated by him in the FIR, at the disclosure of his deceased brother Kailash Singh. So, the testimony of PW8 Pratap Singh, without any corroboration, cannot be made basis for upholding the conviction of the appellants. 11. PW9 Smt. Geeta Devi is the wife of deceased and her deposition is similar to PW8 Pratap Singh. She is also not an eye-witness. Rather, a significant fact, which cannot be overlooked by this Court, is that Smt. Geeta Devi herself filed a petition claiming compensation averring the incident to be a motor accident. So, she cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time. We would not like to make any observation that the incident, in question, was in fact purely an accident or not? But the sole narration disclosed in the FIR though indicating the happening in the nature of murder, nonetheless, the same cannot be made the basis for holding the accused persons guilty for any such offence without the proof of the same. PW9 Geeta Devi has also admitted in her cross-examination that the claim petition for getting the compensation was filed by her on the advice of her elder brother-in-law Pratap Singh (PW8). So, this admission in the deposition of PW8 and PW9 demolishes the case of prosecution and thus, the evidence produced by the prosecution is not sufficient, reliable and trustworthy to hold the accused persons guilty for such a grievous offence of murder. 12. For the reasons stated above, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 8.10.2010, rendered by Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No. 2/2006, and quash the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused appellants Bahadur Singh and Harish Singh. Appellants are on bail. They need not surrender until wanted in any other case. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Let the lower court record, along with copy of this judgment and order, be sent back to the trial court. Appeal allowed.