Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 534 (UTT)

Gopal Ram v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-10-09

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. PW1 set the criminal law into motion by lodging an FIR against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 306 IPC. After the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant for the selfsame offences. The case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned Sessions Judge took cognizance and framed charge for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 366 IPC against the accused-appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2. Prosecution got examined PW1 Pooran Singh (complainant); PW2 Ajab Singh; PW3 Dr. Krishna Kumar Singh; PW4 H.C. Jagdish Ram; PW5 Dr. Rajeev Upadhyaya; PW6 Dhayn Singh; PW7 Khimuli Devi; PW8 Sher Ram and PW9 S.I. Balbir Singh. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he stated that the witnesses are telling a lie. No evidence was adduced in defence. 3. After considering the evidence on record, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, convicted accused-appellant under Sections 306, 366 IPC. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 306 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the convict was further directed to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. A compensation of Rs. 30,000/- was also awarded to the parents of deceased. If the compensation was not paid, the convict was further directed to undergo one year’s additional rigorous imprisonment. The convict was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 366 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the convict was further directed to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, vide judgment and order dated 30.07.2013. Aggrieved against the same, present criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant. 4. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that there is no evidence of abetment of suicide by the appellant, the basic constituents of an offence under Section 306 IPC or suicidal death and abetment thereof. To attract the ingredients of abetment, the intention of the accused to commit or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide is necessary. There should be clear mens rea to commit the offence. 5. To attract the ingredients of abetment, the intention of the accused to commit or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide is necessary. There should be clear mens rea to commit the offence. 5. It is also submitted by learned Amicus Curiae that there was no kidnapping or abetment of the victim by the appellant with the intention that the victim may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person against her will, or that she will be seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduce to illicit intercourse. 6. Postmortem report (Ext. Ka-8) suggests that the death of victim was because of ante mortem hanging. There is no ante mortem injury accept the ligature mark, which usually happens with the victim, who commits suicide. The victim was aged 23 years when she committed suicide. 7. PW1 is the father-in-law of victim, who received the information on 26.08.2011 that the appellant abducted the victim, who has died in T.R.C. Baijnath. PW1 also found the dead body of the victim hanging in T.R.C. Baijnath. He set the criminal law into motion by lodging the FIR. 8. PW2 was caretaker of T.R.C. Baijnath. According to PW2, the appellant brought the victim to T.R.C. Baijnath in the night. The victim and appellant both dined together. Subsequent thereto, PW2 found that the victim had died. The victim had committed suicide by hanging. 9. PW3 was the Medical Officer in Community Health Center, who examined the patient-appellant when he complained of headache and body ache. PW3 prepared the medical report of the appellant. PW3 admitted the appellant when he consumed some poisonous substance. 10. PW4 lodged chik FIR and proved the same along with G.D. etc. 11. PW5 conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the victim and proved the report (Ext. Ka-8). 12. PW6 facilitated talks between the victim and appellant on telephone. One week, thereafter, PW2 came to know that the victim had committed suicide. 13. According to PW7, appellant informed her on telephone that he has abducted PW7’s daughter. Ten days thereafter, the victim committed suicide. 14. PW8 is the father of the victim, who narrated the prosecution story and supported the same. PW9 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation and proved all the prosecution documents. 15. 13. According to PW7, appellant informed her on telephone that he has abducted PW7’s daughter. Ten days thereafter, the victim committed suicide. 14. PW8 is the father of the victim, who narrated the prosecution story and supported the same. PW9 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation and proved all the prosecution documents. 15. Learned Government Advocate for the State submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused-appellant beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. 16. At this stage of dictation, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that he is confining his prayer only to the extent that the sentenced of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Learned Government Advocate did not seriously oppose the same. 17. Although the appellant was granted bail by this Court, but he could not furnish the bail bonds and, hence, was not enlarged on bail. Appellant is in jail since 27.06.2013. 18. Considering the facts of the case and arguments submitted by learned Amicus Curiae, criminal appeal is partly allowed. The conviction recorded by the trial court against the accused-appellant is hereby affirmed. The sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court is reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed upon the appellant is waived and set aside. The order impugned passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, stands modified, accordingly. 19. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent to the court below for ensuring compliance.