Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 732 (UTT)

Krantiveer v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-10-19

RAJIV SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is instituted against the judgment and order dated 11.02.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 2001, whereby appellant/accused was charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Section 307/506 I.P.C. The appellant has been convicted under Section 307 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 506 I.P.C. Accused Dimpal and Dharmendra @ Dharamvir were acquitted. 2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 24.09.1999 at about 11:30 A.M. the complainant Rajiv Sharma(PW1) was standing near Shahid Smriti Sthal in the campus of D.A.V. College along with his friends Anil Kant Purohit, Manish Mehrotra, Bhupendra and others. Accused Krantiveer, Dimpal Kumar and Dharmendra @ Dharamvir having armed with lathi, saria, Khukri and country made pistol in their hands appeared at the spot. All of a sudden they started hurling abuses at Anil Kant Purohit and assaulted him on his head with intention to kill him. Anil Kant Purohit (PW2) raised an alarm, the accused persons ran away from the spot. Then, Anil Kant Purohit was taken to hospital. 3. Doctor was of the opinion that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and duration of the injuries was opined to be fresh. The injured remained in the hospital for four days. FIR was registered. Matter was investigated and the challan was put up after completing all the formalities. The prosecution has examined number of witnesses. Appellant was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has denied the case of prosecution. The accused was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Court, as noticed hereinabove. 4. Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. 5. Mr. Nandan Arya, Dy. Advocate General for the State has quoted the judgment dated 11.02.2003. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the judgment dated 11.02.2003 and record carefully. 7. PW2 Anil Kant Purohit testified that the accused Krantiveer came on the spot with his associates and assaulted him. Injuries were caused on his head. He became unconscious. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the judgment dated 11.02.2003 and record carefully. 7. PW2 Anil Kant Purohit testified that the accused Krantiveer came on the spot with his associates and assaulted him. Injuries were caused on his head. He became unconscious. He remained in Hospital for four days. He was hit on his head by Iron rode. The statement of PW-2 is corroborated by PW-1 Rajiv Sharma. He testified that Krantiveer who was carrying a danda in his hand had assaulted Anil Kant Purohit (PW2). Anil Kant Purohit (PW2) sustained injuries on his head. He fell down and became unconscious. Statements of PW1 Rajiv Sharma and PW2 Anil Kant Purohit are duly corroborated by the medical evidence. Injured was examined by PW-5 Dr. G.P. Singh, who found the following injuries on the person of PW-2 Anil Kant Purohit :- (i) Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. x scalp deep on right side head above left ear. (ii) Lacerated wound 6 cm. x 1 cm. x scalp deep on back side head behind left ear. (iii) Abrasion 1 cm. x 1cm. on left clavicle. (iv) Abrasion 2 cm. x 0.5 cm. on outer aspect of left upper arm 6 cm. above left elbow. (v) Contusion 22 cm. x 20 cm. on middle of back. 8. Doctor has kept injuries Nos. 1 & 2 under observation. He had also advised X-ray of scalp. The injuries were fresh. These were, according to the doctor, caused by hard and blunt object. 9. It is true that the case of the prosecution has not been supported by PW3 Manish Mehrotra and PW4 Amit Kumar. They were declared hostile. According to them, they have reached the spot after the incident has occurred and they have seen Anil Kant Purohit lying unconscious on the spot. 10. The doctor has opined that the injuries Nos. 1 & 2 on the head could be fatal. He was unconscious and was taken hospital. It is not necessary in order to attract the provision of Section 307 IPC that injuries should necessarily be fatal or sufficient to cause death in ordinary course, however, what is necessary is the requisite knowledge to cause death by the overt act of the accused. Accused Krantiveer has hit the injured PW-2 Anil Kant Purohit on his head causing grievous injuries. 11. Accused Krantiveer has hit the injured PW-2 Anil Kant Purohit on his head causing grievous injuries. 11. Accordingly, the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 12. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled. Let the appellant be taken into the custody forthwith to undergo the sentence imposed by the trial court.