Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 573 (UTT)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. HANSA SINGH NEGI

2015-12-16

ALOK SINGH, SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J (Oral) Present appeal is preferred with 22 days delay. 2. We have perused the accompanying affidavit and we are satisfied that delay has been explained properly, therefore, delay condonation application no. 1959 of 2015 is allowed. 22 days’ delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Special Leave to Appeal No. 247 of 2015 3. Present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.07.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2015 whereby accused Hansa Singh Negi was acquitted of the charges under Section 307, 506 IPC and under Section 134 (B) of the Representation of the People Act; accused Man Singh Bisht and Ram Singh Rawat were acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 307/34 and 506 IPC. 4. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia are that Kundan Singh Bisht (PW1) has lodged an FIR (Exhibit A1) on 27.07.2014 at police station Salt, District Almora stating therein that on 27.07.2014 election of Kshetra Panchayat was going on in Block – Salt; at about 2.40 p.m. accused Hansa Singh Negi, Man Singh and Ram Singh extended threat to kill the informant (PW1); when informant PW1 Kundan Singh Bisht objected to it Hansa Singh Negi fired shot at him; however, it could not hit PW1 Kundan Singh Bisht, since he immediately laid down on the ground; thereafter, Hansa Singh Negi fired another shot in the air; thereafter, all the accused fled from the spot on a vehicle bearing no. UK 01 7088, which was being driven by accused Man Singh. 5. As per statement of PW1 Kundan Singh Bisht, there were three accused persons on the spot while as per statement of PW2 Lalit Rawat, alleged eye witness, there were two accused persons only and accused Man Singh was driving the vehicle and Hansa Singh Negi was sitting on the rear seat. 6. PW3 Jagat Singh, alleged eye witness, while appearing in the witness box has not stated about firing done by accused Hansa Singh Negi; however, he stated that he has only heard the sound of gunshot. 7. PW3 has not seen Hansa Singh Negi firing the shot at PW1 Kundan Singh Bisht. 6. PW3 Jagat Singh, alleged eye witness, while appearing in the witness box has not stated about firing done by accused Hansa Singh Negi; however, he stated that he has only heard the sound of gunshot. 7. PW3 has not seen Hansa Singh Negi firing the shot at PW1 Kundan Singh Bisht. Firearm allegedly recovered at the instance of accused Hansa Negi was sent to Ballistic Expert and as per Ballistic Expert report, no fire was found to have been shot by the weapon recovered at the instance of Hansa Negi. 8. In view of the above, learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused. In an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, ordinarily, judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed, even if, two views are possible on the same set of evidence. Judgment of acquittal may be reversed, if same is found to be totally perverse or prosecution is able to point out that important piece of evidence was left to be considered, which could have resulted into conviction of the accused. 9. Since PW 2 has stated that there were two accused while as per FIR and statement of PW1, there were three accused persons and another alleged eye witness PW3 has not seen the accused firing shot at Kundan Singh Bisht and as per Ballistic Expert report that fire was not shot from the weapon recovered at the instance of accused Hansa Singh Negi, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in granting the leave to appeal. Consequently, leave to appeal is declined. 9. In result, government appeal is also dismissed.