Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 282 (UTT)

RAKESH SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2015-05-28

U.C.DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) By means of present Criminal Appeal, convicts-appellants have challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.003, whereby the accused-appellants Rakesh Singh, Chandra Veer Singh, Sohan Singh, Sudama Singh and Hukum Singh were convicted of the offences punishable under Section 324 and 147 of IPC and were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months along with fine of Rs. 3000/- each, for the offence under Section 147 IPC and one year’s rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5000/- each, for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentences, present Criminal Appeal was preferred the appellants. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted at the very outset that he has nothing to say on the merits of the case. He prayed that the accused-appellants are not previous convicts, therefore, they should be granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Learned counsel for the State is not averse to the idea of granting benefit of Reformatory-law to the appellants, in the absence of there being anything against them in the past. 3. In view of the above submission of learned counsel for the appellants, the conviction of the appellants as regards the offences complained of against them (Sections 147 and 324 of IPC) is affirmed. Otherwise also, on the basis of evidence on record, there appears to be no reason to interfere with the findings (of conviction) arrived at by the Trial Court. 4. According to the prosecution version, PW2 Dhanveer Singh wrote a complaint to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pratap Nagar, Tehri Lambgawn, Tehri, on 31.10.1997, with the facts enumerating therein that, the accused persons, who are his close relatives, on 30.10.1997, in the dead of night at around 12:00 clock, when the complainant’s brother went to celebrate Deepawali, accused persons surrounded him in the courtyard and inflicted blows of kicks, fists and knives on him. They also abused the brother of the complainant and also threatened him with the dire consequences. Had Rashul Singh, Uttam Singh, Rajendra Singh, Veer Singh and Ramesh Singh not come on the spot, the accused persons would have killed Pramod Singh. The Injured was taken to the hospital and his injuries were medically examined. They also abused the brother of the complainant and also threatened him with the dire consequences. Had Rashul Singh, Uttam Singh, Rajendra Singh, Veer Singh and Ramesh Singh not come on the spot, the accused persons would have killed Pramod Singh. The Injured was taken to the hospital and his injuries were medically examined. The incident allegedly took place on 30.10.1997 and the First Information Report was lodged on 01.11.1997, at 3:00 p.m. The difference between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was three kilometers. Hence there appears to be no delay in lodging the FIR. 5. Chik FIR (Ext. Ka-4) was prepared, which was registered as Case Crime No. 06 of 1997, under Sections 147, 307, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellants. Charges for the offences punishable under Sections 307/149 IPC and 147 IPC were framed against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. PW1 Kapol Singh, PW2 Dhanveer Singh (informant), PW 3 Dr. S.K. Singh, PW 4 Promod Singh and PW 5 Sunder Lal Badoni were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which, they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, vide impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.2003, convicted the accused-appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 324 IPC and sentenced them as above. 7. PW 1, PW 2, PW 4, in their examination-in-chief, supported the prosecution story. PW 2, who was not present on the spot, but lodged the complaint, has also supported the prosecution story. PW 2 has admitted in his examination-in-chief, that he was not present when the occurrence took place. When he went on the spot, he came to know that his injured brother (PW 4) was being taken to Tehri. 8. PW1 is the witness, who has rendered the eyewitness account and also said that the injured was taken to Tehri for treatment. PW 1 also accepted the fact of enmity of the injured with the accused persons. In the cross-examination, PW 2 stated that although he was not present when the incident took place, but he saw the injured lying on the ground. PW 1 also accepted the fact of enmity of the injured with the accused persons. In the cross-examination, PW 2 stated that although he was not present when the incident took place, but he saw the injured lying on the ground. The injured sustained injuries, but he did not know as to how the incident took place. 9. PW 4 is the injured, who has supported the prosecution story in its entirety. He has disclosed the fact of enmity with the accused persons, saying that they assaulted him. PW 3 lent assurance to the prosecution story by corroborating the oral testimony of the aforesaid witnesses. PW 3 found the following injuries on the person of the injured: 5 (i) Incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on the left side of face 1 cm in front of left ear. (ii) Incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm cartilage deep on the front of left ear. (iii) Incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.7 cm x subcutaneous over the medial part of left clavical. (iv) Incised wound 2.00 cm x 0.7 cm x depth not probed on the upper par of front of left side of chest 2 cm below left clavicle. (v) Complaint of pain, abdomen blood in the stool, on examination, injury mark seen in the abdomen. 10. PW 4 also stated that barring injuries no. 4 & 5, all the injuries were simple in nature. X-ray was advised in respect of injury no. 4. He also stated that injury no. 1 & 3 can be sustained by knife and injury no. 5 can be sustained by kicks and fists. Had the knife been also recovered on the pointing of the accused, that would have made the things better for the prosecution, but even then, the quality of evidence rendered by the informant, injured and other witnesses is such that the prosecution story can be believed beyond doubt. Certain discrepancies and contradictions are bound to happen in the testimony of natural witnesses, but on over all evaluation of their evidence, it cannot be said that they were telling a lie. PW 5 was the investigating officer of the case, who after being satisfied that the accused persons committed the offence, submitted the charge-sheet against the wrong doors. 11. Certain discrepancies and contradictions are bound to happen in the testimony of natural witnesses, but on over all evaluation of their evidence, it cannot be said that they were telling a lie. PW 5 was the investigating officer of the case, who after being satisfied that the accused persons committed the offence, submitted the charge-sheet against the wrong doors. 11. Learned Trial Court gave elaborate reasons for coming to the conclusion that the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 324 IPC were proved against the accused-appellants. The evidence, thus brought on record, was rightly appreciated by the Court below. There is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order in so far as holding the appellants guilty of offences proved against them is concerned. No interference is thus called for in the order of conviction of the accused-appellants under Sections 147 and 324 of IPC. 12. Considering the nature of the offences proved against the accused-appellants and the fact that they are not previous convicts, this Court is persuaded to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the accused-appellants should be granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for maintaining harmony in their community as well as in the interest of justice. 13. The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the accused-appellants should be granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is, therefore, acceptable. 14. Thus, instead of sentencing the accused-appellants at once and sending them to prison, it is directed that they shall be released on probation on their each entering into a bond with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Tehri Garhwal, to appear and receive the sentences when called upon during the period of two years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior. The offenders shall remain under the supervision of District Probation Officer, Tehri Garhwal, during such period (of two years). If the offenders are found to be violating any of the conditions made in the supervision order, they shall undergo the entire sentence which has been awarded to the appellants by the Trial Court. Accused-appellants are directed to appear before the Court concerned on or before 28.06.2014 to file required bonds etc. 15. If the offenders are found to be violating any of the conditions made in the supervision order, they shall undergo the entire sentence which has been awarded to the appellants by the Trial Court. Accused-appellants are directed to appear before the Court concerned on or before 28.06.2014 to file required bonds etc. 15. With the directions as above, the Criminal Appeal is finally disposed of. Let the Lower Court Record be transmitted back for ensuring compliance.