Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1484 (HP)

Shayamu Yadav v. State Of H. P.

2018-08-08

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - All the aforesaid appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment, as, all arise, from, a common verdict rendered, by the learned trial Court. 2. The learned trial Court convicted the accused/convicts, namely, Jagdev Singh, Anil Kumar, Gurjeet Singh and Shayamu Yadav, for the charges framed under Section 392, and, under Section 323 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC, whereas, it pronounced an order of acquittal, upon the accused, vis-a-vis, offences punishable, under Section 307 of the IPC, and, under Section 24 of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. Amongst the convicts, only Jagdev Singh, Gurjeet Singh and Shayamu Yadav, have instituted rather separate appeals therefrom, whereas, accused Anil Kumar, has not, instituted any appeal, vis-a-vis, the aforesaid order, of, conviction hence recorded against him. The learned trial Court proceeded to impose sentences of imprisonment, upon, the convicts in the hereinafter extracted manner:- Sr.No. Sections Sentence 1. 392, IPC Each of the convicts are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. In the event of non payment of fine, the defaulting convict shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. 323, IPC The convicts are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in the event of non payment of fine, the defaulting convict shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 4. Even the State of Himachal Pradesh, has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal, as, pronounced upon the convicts, for the charges respectively framed against the convicts, for, theirs allegedly committing offences punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, and, under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 5. The facts relevant to decide the instant case that one Harvinder Singh, complainant reported the matter to the police stating that he was owner-cum-driver of a car bearing No. Hr-01u-3717, which was being used as taxi by him. On 16.06.2012, this car had been hired by four persons, from the taxi union at Gagan Chowk, Rajpur, for the purpose of paying a visit to Mata Naina Devi Temple The taxi fare was settled at Rs. 1,700/-. ON the way, these persons had taken dinner at about 11.30 p.m., in a hotel, situated a some distance short of Kiratpur Sahib. 1,700/-. ON the way, these persons had taken dinner at about 11.30 p.m., in a hotel, situated a some distance short of Kiratpur Sahib. Thereafter, the journey had been resumed and at a place about two kilometers short of Naina Devi Temple, the said passengers asked the complainant to to stop the car, since they want to vomit. The complainant stopped the vehicle. Further that upon getting down, one of the passengers pointed a revolver towards the complainant and asked him to sit on the rear seat of the vehicle and told him that thereafter, the vehicle would be driven by them. The complainant was made to sit on the rear seat and the vehicle was taken by one of the said persons on the Bhakara road. After going for about 5-6 kilometers, the complainant was made to alight from the vehicle, again pointing the gun towards him. The mobile phone of the complainant bearing SIM no. 09878220792 alongwith Rs. 1,000/- were snatched by the said persons and the complainant was pushed down into a gorge. The accused simultaneously kept pelting stones on him, from the road, and thereafter, took away the vehicle of the complainant. The complainant was able to get up and reach the road with great difficulty and had somehow managed to reach on foot at police post, Shri Naina Devi Ji. On the basis of these averments, the FIR was lodged and initial investigation was under taken by Inspector/SHO Shyam Chand and thereafter, by Inspector SHO/Tilak Raj, who conducting partial investigations, handed over the file to ASI Harpal Singh, for further investigations. During investigation, the IO visited the spot along with the complainant and prepared the spot map. The statement of the complainant was recorded. Thereafter police completed all the investigating formalities and arrested the accused. 6. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, a report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was prepared, and, filed before the learned trial Court. 7. The accused/convicts stood charged, by the learned trial Court, for, theirs committing offences, punishable under Section 392, 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 25 of he Arms Act. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses. 7. The accused/convicts stood charged, by the learned trial Court, for, theirs committing offences, punishable under Section 392, 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 25 of he Arms Act. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses. On conclusion of recording, of, the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were, recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein, the accused claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication in the case. 8. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction upon the accused/convicts, for theirs hence committing, the, aforesaid offences hence punishable under Section 392 and Section 323 of the IPC, read, with Section 34 of the IPC, whereas, it ac1uitted the accused of the offences punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, and, under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 9. The appellants herein/accused, stands aggrieved, by the findings of conviction, recorded, by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel appearing, for, the appellants herein/accused, has concertedly and vigorously contended, qua the findings of conviction, recorded by the learned trial Court, standing not, based on a proper appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross misappreciation, by it, of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction warranting reversal by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 10. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Advocate General has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of conviction, recorded, by the learned trial Court, rather standing based, on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 11. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 12. 11. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 12. Primarily, the prime prosecution witness, PW-5 one Harviner Singh, upon whose complaint, comprised in Ex.PW5/A, the apposite FIR, borne in Ex.PW 13/A, was lodged with the Police station concerned, has therein made candid unfoldings, vis-a-vis, the apt penal misdemeanors being committed by the convicts/accused, (i) also, when he stepped into the witness box, he has in absolute tandem therewith rendered echoings qua the accused, whom he proceeded to identify in Court, forcibly fleeing with his vehicle, mobile phone, and, cash of Rs. 1000/-, (ii) also in his testification, borne in his examination-in-chief, he has made clear articulations therein, qua the recovery, of, the vehicle, country made pistol, Ex.P-2, and, mobile phone Ex.P-4, standing effectuated at the instance of the accused. In his testification, borne in his cross-examination, he has not made any bespeakings therein, (iii) whereupon, it may be concluded qua his deposition, comprised, in his examination-in-chief, being eroded, thereupon, it is to be concluded qua his testifications, borne in his examinationin-chief, and, in his cross-examination both being apparently bereft of any rife contradictions, improvements, and, gross embellishments, vis-a-vis,his previous statement recorded in writing, (iv) and, hence, the apt probative vigour is enjoined to be imputed to his testification. In addition, when the convicts/accused omitted to repel the factum, of theirs, being identified by PW-5, in Court, also when, for reasons assigned hereafter, when the apt recoveries, stand efficaciously proven, thereupon, it is to be formidably concluded qua the prosecution, hence proving the charge(s) against the accused. 13. Be that as it may, the testification qua the genesis of the prosecution case, as, rendered by PW-5, also acquires corroboration, from, the testification rendered by PW-3, the Investigation Officer concerned, and, from the testification of PW-18, ASI Harpal Sigh, both whereof visibly hence render testifications, bereft of any gross embellishments or improvements, vis-a-vis, their respectively, recorded previous statements recorded in writing, hence, their testifications purvey the utmost corroboration to the testification, of, PW-4, thereupon an inference, is bolstered qua the prosecution, rather firmly nailing the charges against the accused. 14. 14. Nowat, the factum of the prosecution also succeeding in proving the apt charges, acquires galvanized momentum, and, ensues from (i) co-convict Jagdev Singh making a disclosure statement, borne in Ex.PW1/A, whereon PW-1 Amarjeet Singh appended his signatures, as witness thereto, and, latter whereof rather in his testification, hence, lending candid proof qua all the recitals, borne therein, holding veracity, (ii) and, when thereafter under recovery memo, borne in Ex.PW1/B, the recovery of the apt stolen vehicle, stood effectuated, whereon also the signatures of PW-1, stand appended, latter whereof, in his testification rendered on oath, also hence, proves the veracity, of all the recitals borne therein, (iii) thereupon, with tenacious evidence hence standing adduced, for, efficaciously proving the recovery, of, the apt vehicle, as, validly effectuated thereunder, concomitantly, hence the charge framed under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the convicts, hence stands firmly proved, besides also lends an apt firm probative vigour, to, the uneroded testification of PW-5. 15. Co-Convict Anil Kumar, rendered his disclosure statement, borne in Ex.PW2/A, and, thereon, PW-2 Jarnail Singh, has appended his signatures, as a witness thereto, and, thereafter under Ex.PW2/C, recovery, of, the items borne therein, hence, stood effectuated, at the instance of convict Anil Kumar, whereon also the signatures of PW-2, as, a witness thereto, rather stand appended, (i) and, with PW-2 Jarnail Singh, in his testification on oath, making echoings, in, proof, of, apt veracities, of, all the recitals borne therein, (ii) hence, the apt sequitur thereof, is, qua the aforesaid valid recovery(ies), of, all items borne in Ex.PW2/C, hence, being cogently proven, to, stand effectuated thereunder, and, also thereupon corroboration, standing meted, vis-a-vis, the uneroded testification qua the genesis of the prosecution case, as, rendered by PW5. 16. Furthermore, the place of occurrence was identified, under a disclosure statement, rendered by co- convict Shayamu Yadav, and, as comprised in Ex.PW4/A. PW-4 Jasbir Singh, witness thereto, in his testification, proves all the recitals borne therein, thereupon, it is to be invincibly concluded, qua the prosecution also proving the place, whereat, the occurrence took place, besides formidably proves qua the participation therein, of all the convicts. The reason for forming the aforesaid conclusion, arises, from the factum of each of the witness(es) to the above stated memos, even during the course of theirs being subjected, to, the ordeal, of, a rigorous crossexaminations, theirs yet remaining unshattered, whereupon, reiteratedly credibility is to be imputed, to their respective testifications rendered, qua, the relevant factum probandum, and, as borne, in their respective examinations-in-chief. 17. The learned trial Court had, upon, anvil of Ex.PW10/B, making disclosures qua the victim/complainant, in sequel to an assault being perpetrated, upon him, by the convicts, his being entailed with simple injuries, upon his person, hence recorded a conclusion against the accused, qua theirs committing, an offence constituted under Section 323 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. Since, the aforesaid medical evidence also bears concurrence, with, the uneroded testification, of, PW-5, thereupon, the findings of conviction recorded, upon, the co-convicts, for theirs committing offences punishable, under Section 323, IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC, are, sustainable. Consequently, the findings recorded by the learned trial qua the accused committing offences punishable under Section 392 and Section 323 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC, do not, suffer from any infirmity. 18. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court, has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the analysis of the material, on record, by the learned trial court, hence, not suffering from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of germane evidence on record. 19. Consequently, all the appeals are dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.