Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 244 (UTT)

VIRENDRA NAUTIYAL v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2015-05-18

U.C.DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral) Present criminal appeal has been preferred by the complainant-appellant Virendra Nautiyal against the acquittal of the accused-respondent Satish Thapaliyal under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC. 2.A criminal complaint case was filed by the complainant against accused respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal. In the said complaint it was alleged that on 21.11.2001, at 09:30–10:00 A.M., when the complainant was basking under the sun in front of the shop of one Baldev, vegetable vender, the accused came, abused him and slapped on his face. When the complainant raised hue and cry, nearby shopkeepers namely, Om Prakash and Rajesh Uniyal came and rescued the complainant. When complainant’s wife reached on the spot and questioned the accused as to why did he beat her husband, the accused also abused her, tried to outrage her modesty and threatened her with dire consequences. The complainant made an attempt to lodge a report in the police station concerned, but to no avail. On 22.11.2001, the condition of complainant’s wife worsened. She was taken to a doctor and, therefore, the criminal complaint case could only be filed on 23.11.2001. 3.The accused was summoned to face the trial for the offences complained of against him. Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. PW1 Virendra Dutt Nautiyal, PW2 Smt. Anjana Nautiyal and PW3 Rajesh Uniyal were examined on behalf of the complainant. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which, he stated that he was falsely implicated in the case. DW1 Vijay Singh Panwar was examined on behalf of the defence. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court did not believe the complainant’s version and acquitted the accused of the charges framed against him. Aggrieved against the same, present criminal appeal has been preferred by the complainant-appellant. 5. In defence DW1 filed a copy of the compromise dated 21.11.2001 entered into between the parties to show that the parties have amicably settled their dispute. Aggrieved against the same, present criminal appeal has been preferred by the complainant-appellant. 5. In defence DW1 filed a copy of the compromise dated 21.11.2001 entered into between the parties to show that the parties have amicably settled their dispute. 6.Though PW1, PW2 and PW3 in their examination-in-chief under Section 244 Cr.P.C. have supported the complainant’s version but the fact remains that no maarpeet took place before PW2, who came rushing to the spot after PW1 raised hue and cry. PW3 stated that there was a scuffle going on between the complainant and the accused, when he reached the spot. He did not say that the accused assaulted the complainant. The incident took place on 21.11.2001, at 09:30–10:00 A.M., but it is not proved as to whether the complainant or his wife approached the police station for lodging the FIR or not? The complaint was filed only on 23.11.2001. No evidence has been offered to show that the complainant or his wife went to the hospital for examination of their injuries. In fact, no injury report has been brought on record. 7. The vegetable vendor, before whose shop the incident allegedly took place, was not examined on behalf of the complainant. Neither Baldev Singh nor Om Prakash was examined on behalf of the complainant. In fact, some altercation might have taken place between the complainant and the accused on the question of accounting, but there is no reliable evidence to show that the accused-respondent infact assaulted the complainant and abused his wife or tried to outrage her modesty. 8.DW1, who was Gram Pradhan at the relevant point of time, stated that some altercation took place between the complainant and accused on the question of accounting, but no maarpeet took place in his presence. He denied that accused abused the complainant in his presence. Both the complainant and accused were contractors. 9.The trial court has appropriately discussed the evidence to come to a finding that the complainant was unable to prove the case against the accused-respondent beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. This Court has also perused the evidence thus brought on record only to uphold the inference drawn by learned trial court. This Court has no reason to take a view contrary to what was taken by the court below. This Court has also perused the evidence thus brought on record only to uphold the inference drawn by learned trial court. This Court has no reason to take a view contrary to what was taken by the court below. 10.While parting with the case, it will also be apt to reproduce the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar vs State of Rajasthan, (1991) 1 SCC 166 . Para 2 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein-in-below for ready reference: “2. Law is well settled. While caution is the watchword, in appeal against acquittal as the trial Judge has occasion to watch demeanour of witnesses interference should not be made merely because a different conclusion could have been arrived at; the provision does not inhibit (sic) any restriction or limitation. Prudence demands restraint on mere probability or possibility but in perversity or misreading interference is imperative otherwise existence of power shall be rendered meaningless.” 11.The criminal appeal has, therefore, no force and the same is dismissed. 12. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court below.