Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 529 (UTT)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. DINESH SINGH

2015-11-16

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Respondents have been served personally as reported by the Registry, however, none is appearing for the respondents. 2. I have carefully perused the accompanying affidavit to the application seeking condonation of 42 days delay. I am satisfied that delay has been property explained. Therefore, 42 days delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Application seeking condonation of delay (CRMA No. 1335 of 2013) is allowed. SPLA No. 127 of 2015 4. Present appeal is preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 26.04.2013, passed by Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2012, whereby learned Appellate Court was pleased to acquit the accused from the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 452 I.P.C. 5. As per the prosecution story as narrated in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., complainant/injured and accused/respondents are neighbours; at about 10:00 p.m. in the night of 05.10.2010, all the accused respondents forcibly entered into the room of injured and started assaulting her with rod, lathi and stick; meanwhile, her son PW2 Aayush, who was sleeping nearby, awakened and started making noise; Smt. Sundra Devi, Bimla Devi and Hanumant @ Hanuman reached on the spot and saw the accused / respondents assaulting the injured. None of the eyewitnesses, namely Smt. Sundra Devi, Bimla Devi and Hanumant @ Hanuman were examined. Entire case is roaming around the statement of PW3 Raghuvir Singh besides the statement of the injured PW1 Bina Devi. PW3 Raghuvir Singh is not the eyewitness. Initially, Investigating Officer has submitted final report in favour of the accused / respondents, however, on the protest petition, accused/ respondents were summoned by the Magistrate. Learned appellate Court has observed that Smt. Sundra Devi was said to be eyewitness of the incident, while, appearing in the witness box, PW1 injured Bina Devi has stated that when she was taken to the house of Raghuvir Singh, then Sundra Devi was called. Therefore, presence of Sundra Devi either on the spot or in the house of PW3 Raghuvir Singh, seems to be totally doubtful. 6. In an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, ordinarily, judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed lightly even if two views are possible. Therefore, presence of Sundra Devi either on the spot or in the house of PW3 Raghuvir Singh, seems to be totally doubtful. 6. In an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, ordinarily, judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed lightly even if two views are possible. Judgment of acquittal can be disturbed or reversed only when same is found to be totally perverse or prosecution is able to prove that some important piece of evidence was left out to be considered by the Trial Court which could have resulted into the conviction. No such piece of evidence has been pointed out to us. 7. In view of the fact that none of the eyewitnesses were examined, therefore, I concur with the view of the Appellate Court. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in granting leave to appeal. Therefore, leave to appeal is declined. Application seeking leave to appeal is dismissed. 8. In the result Government Appeal is also dismissed.