Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 489 (UTT)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. VINOD SINGH CHAUHAN

2015-10-07

ALOK SINGH, SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. (Oral) Having heard Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Farida Siddiqui, for the State/Appellant, 18 days’ delay in filing both these appeals is hereby condoned on the grounds stated and disclosed in the accompanying affidavits. 2. Delay Condonation Applications (CRMA Nos. 1671 and 1670 of 2015) stand disposed of accordingly. 3. Objection marked by the Registry is hereby overruled. 4. The challenge in both these appeals is to the judgment and order dated 11.06.2015 rendered by Sessions Judge, Chamoli (Gopeshwar) culminating the trial no. 9 of 2012 into acquittal. Such trial was proceeded against the respondent-accused Sri Vinod Singh Chauhan for the offence of Section 302 I.P.C.; crime no. 30 of 2011 pertaining to police station Joshimath. The coordinate trial no. 4 of 2012 also proceeded against the same accused-respondent for the offence of Section 4/25 Arms Act bearing a separate crime no. 32 of 2011. This trial also concluded into acquittal, whereagainst the separate Government Appeal No. 143 of 2015 has been instituted along with application seeking Special Leave to Appeal. 5. In brief, the necessary facts as emerging out from the first information report, lodged by uncle of the deceased Mr. Pradeep Lal Sah, is that his nephew Sri Vikas Lal Sah left his house on 05.09.2011 for village Bheundar to watch the Nandashtami Fair, while on his way back from fair, he stayed in the house of Sri Vinod Singh Chauhan. Sri Chauhan, at the time of such stay of the deceased, was not present in the house at beginning, but arrived there when the deceased was having the dinner with Km. Anamika (the daughter of the accused) inside the house itself. Having seen Mr. Vikas Lal Sah in such a state of enjoying the night meal with his daughter Km. Anamika, accused Mr. Vinod Singh Chauhan, with intention to kill, stabbed the fatal blow of knife in the stomach of Mr. Vikas Lal Sah. 6. In the course of this incident, Km. Anamika strived to save Mr. Vikas Lal Sah and she also suffered some injuries on her face and left cheek. Somehow, Mr. Vikas Lal Sah was carried to the nearby hospital with the assistance of 108 ambulance, but his life could not be saved and he breathed his last. 7. 6. In the course of this incident, Km. Anamika strived to save Mr. Vikas Lal Sah and she also suffered some injuries on her face and left cheek. Somehow, Mr. Vikas Lal Sah was carried to the nearby hospital with the assistance of 108 ambulance, but his life could not be saved and he breathed his last. 7. Lodging of such first information report, resulted into the submission of the charge-sheet as stated above. Charge was levelled accordingly and the accused was put to trial. 8. The learned Trial Judge has examined the only and most crucial witness Km. Anamika as PW-3 in the course of such trial who has identified the deceased Vikas Lal Sah and the accused Vinod Singh Chauhan as her father. She has admitted that Vikas Lal Sah was resident of Govind Ghat and was her friend. So, in order to augment such friendship, they kept on meeting each other. She has further stated that on 05.09.2011, there was Nandashtami Fair in her village Bheundar where her parents had gone. She has denied specifically to have received any phone call at the end of Vikas Lal Sah informing her about his coming to see the fair. She has deposed further stating her absence in the house on that fateful day nor she went to see the fair. She has further denied that Vikas Lal Sah had come to see the fair, so, she was declared hostile completely. In her cross examination, she has clarified the injury mark on her left cheek, which were caused due to her falling on the ground. 9. There is no other witness who can lend support the prosecution version. Simply on the version of the informant as has been reported in the police station, no accused can be convicted. 10. In view of what has been set forth above, we feel that there is no scope for us to interfere in the judgment of acquittal as has been passed in both the appeals by the Trial Judge. 11. With the result, the leave to appeal is refused and the applications seeking Special Leave to Appeal are hereby rejected. Consequently, both Government Appeals also fail and are hereby dismissed.