Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 344 (UTT)

Janga Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-06-30

RAJIV SHARMA, SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Since the common questions of law and facts are involved in both these appeals, the same have been taken up together and decided by this common judgment. 2. These appeals are instituted against the judgment and order dated 30.8.2011 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge/Third FTC, Haridwar, whereby the accused/respondents Gurmit Singh, Kulwant Singh and Kashmir Singh, who were tried and charged under section 307, 120B and 506 IPC, were acquitted in S.T. No.369/2005. Accused Gurmit Singh, who was tried in S.T. No.370/2005, for the offence of Section 25 Arms Act, was also acquitted by the Trial Court. 3. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that PW1 Janga Singh has lodged the FIR on 26.10.2004 with the averments that on 25.10.2004, respondents/accused came to his house at 8 PM. Gurmit Singh and Kunwant Singh were armed with guns. Gurmit Singh proclaimed that since the complainant was pursuing (doing Pairvi) of Shravan Kumar, let his entire family be done away with. Gurmit Singh opened the fire on the complainant but he narrowly escaped. Complainant and his family raised the alarm, hearing which, the neighbours, namely, Mahendra Singh, Pritam Singh, Jasvir Singh and other villagers came on the spot. Thereafter, the accused ran away towards the forest. Complainant further alleged that Aatma Singh and Kashmir Singh were also having complicity in the aforesaid crime. 4. Co-accused Aatma Singh died during the trial hence the trial stood abated against him. 5. Accused were booked for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 120-B and 506 of the IPC. Investigation was completed and Challan was put up after completing the necessary codal formalities. 6. Accused Gurmit Singh was further booked for the offence punishable under section 25 of the Arms Act. 7. Prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses in support of its case. 8. Thereafter, the statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 They have denied the case of prosecution. 9. The Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, has acquitted the accused/respondents. Hence, the complainant Janga Singh has filed the present appeals before this Court. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 11. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the accused/respondents, in both the appeals, has supported the judgment dated 30.8.2011. 12. Hence, the complainant Janga Singh has filed the present appeals before this Court. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 11. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the accused/respondents, in both the appeals, has supported the judgment dated 30.8.2011. 12. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the entire record. 13. According to the contents of the FIR, on 25.10.2004 at 8 PM, Janga Singh was sitting in his house along with his family members i.e. his wife Smt. Tej Kaur and two sons Himmat Singh and Balwinder Singh. At that time, Gurmit Singh and Kulwant Singh came on the spot. Gurmit Singh opened the fire at Janga Singh. He narrowly escaped. The genesis of the FIR is that Janga Singh was looking after the cases of his brother-in-law Shravan. The family raised the alarm. Neighbours Mahinder Singh, Pritam Singh, Jasvir Singh and other villagers came on the spot and challenged the accused, due to which, the accused ran away from the spot. 14. Prosecution has not examined the material witnesses of the case, namely, Smt. Tej Kaur and Balvinder Singh. According to the prosecution story, PW1 Janga Singh and PW2 Himmat Singh were the eyewitnesses of the occurrence. 15. PW1 Janga Singh, in his statement, has testified that he was sitting with his family. Gurmit Singh and Kulwant Singh came on the spot. They were armed with guns. Gurmeet Singh opened the fire. He escaped unhurt. Gurmeet Singh exhorted Joginder Singh that since he (PW1) was taking care of the cases of his brother-in-law Shravan Singh, let his entire family be finished. In the FIR, he has also stated that Atma Singh (against whom the trial abated) and Kashmir Singh were also involved in the criminal conspiracy. 16. However, in the cross-examination, he has admitted that neither he was pursuing the cases of Shravan nor Shravan Singh was looking after his litigation. 17. PW2 Himmat Singh has corroborated the statement of PW1 Janga Singh. He did not see Kashmir Singh or Atma Singh on the spot nor any conspiracy was hatched before him. 18. PW3 Jasvir Singh has deposed that he heard the accused hatching a conspiracy at the bus stand. 17. PW2 Himmat Singh has corroborated the statement of PW1 Janga Singh. He did not see Kashmir Singh or Atma Singh on the spot nor any conspiracy was hatched before him. 18. PW3 Jasvir Singh has deposed that he heard the accused hatching a conspiracy at the bus stand. According to him, the accused were stating that let Janga Singh and Swarn Singh be killed, then only, the litigation would come to an end. 19. PW4 Mahendra Singh has also testified that he heard the accused hatching a conspiracy. 20. However, it is a matter of common sense that the conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and no sane person would ever speak in loud terms at a public place about killing the entire family. Even assuming hypothetically that PW3 Jasvir Singh and PW4 Mahendra Singh had heard the accused hatching a conspiracy, in that case, they should have informed the complainant Janga Singh. 21. PW5 S.I. Sadhna Tyagi is a formal witness of the case who completed the investigation after taking into possession the gun along with three cartridges from the possession of accused. 22. It has come on record that the litigation was going on between the parties. Thus, the possibility of false implication of accused cannot be ruled out. The basis of lodging the F.I.R. was that Gurmit Singh had come on the spot and exhorted that since Janga Singh was pursuing the litigation of his brother-in-law Shravan Kumar, let his entire family be killed. However, in the cross-examination, PW1 Janga Singh has categorically deposed that neither he nor Shravan Singh was pursuing each other's litigation. 23. According to the statements of PW3 Jasvir Singh and PW4 Mahendra Singh, the conspiracy was hatched in a public place. According to them, they overheard the accused to kill the complainant and his family, but surprisingly, they did not inform Janga Singh. It is an unusual conduct of these witnesses. Moreover, Smt. Tej Kaur, Wife of PW1, was sitting with PW1 Janga Singh but she has not been examined by the prosecution. It is settled law that material witnesses, at times, are not examined by the prosecution only on the ground that they might not support the prosecution case. PW1 Janga Singh and PW2 Himmat Singh are the father and son. PW3 Jasvir Singh and PW4 Mahendra Singh are the independent witnesses but they did not see the occurrence. It is settled law that material witnesses, at times, are not examined by the prosecution only on the ground that they might not support the prosecution case. PW1 Janga Singh and PW2 Himmat Singh are the father and son. PW3 Jasvir Singh and PW4 Mahendra Singh are the independent witnesses but they did not see the occurrence. They reached the spot after hearing the noise of gunshot. 24. It is well settled that in order to prove the Charge under section 307 IPC, intention and knowledge are the sine qua non which are missing in the instant case. 25. Thus, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under which they were charged. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court in both the S.Ts. Nos.369/2005 and 370/2005. 26. Accordingly, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the Trial Court. The appeals fail and the same are dismissed. 27. Let a copy of this judgment along with the LCR be transmitted to the Court below for information.