Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 447 (UTT)

KHEMKARAN GANGWAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2019-08-16

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. List has been revised, and even in the revised call, none appears before the Court to argue the Revision. Since it is a Criminal Revision challenging the impugned orders of conviction, and because the Criminal Revision cannot be dismissed in default, hence, this Court proceeds to decide the Revision on its merits after going through the record and hearing the Government Advocate. 2. This is a Criminal Revision, which has been preferred by the revisionist being aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 12th June, 2015, as well as the judgment dated 9th December, 2010, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar as well as the learned Judicial Magistriact, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar respectively in Criminal Case No. 2209 of 2008, State Vs. Khemkaran Gangwar as well as the Appellate Court's judgment as rendered on 12th June, 2015 by the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 2010, Khemkaran Gangwar Vs. State of Uttarakhand. By virtue of the impugned orders under challenge, the revisionist has been convicted for commission of offences under Sections 452, 325, 504 and 506 IPC and, accordingly, he has directed the revisionist to undergo a simple imprisonment of six months under Section 452 and a penalty of Rs.5,000/- was imposed against him; for the offence under Section 325 IPC, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- was imposed against him, for the offence under Section 504, he has been directed to undergo imprisonment of one month and for the offence under Section 506 IPC, the revisionist has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment of four months. 3. After having considered the order of conviction and its propriety as recorded by the Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order of conviction dated 9th December, 2012, the Judicial Magistrate has considered the propriety of the incident, which has occurred on 5th October, 2008, wherein, it is contended that the complainant was assaulted by the revisionist after entering into the house forcefully and by inflicting blows upon him after taking out a burning wood from the fire place. 4. 4. It is the case of the complainant as registered before the Court below that on account of the said assault made, he has suffered injuries and the bone of his left hand was fractured and, thereafter, it is also alleged that he was threatened that in case if he does not vacate the premises in which the complainant was residing, the revisionist is accused of having warned him of dire consequences. 5. The prosecution for the purposes of establishment of the offence narrated in the incident, which was registered on 18th October, 2008, as F.I.R. No. 222/2008 before P.S. Kichha, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for which, the revisionist was charge-sheeted, had recorded the statement of PW2 Rambahadur, who in his examination-in-chief had narrated the incident of 5th October, 2008, which occurred at about 12:00 P.M., it was to the effect that on 05.20.2008, when he was lying on a cot in his residence, the present revisionist along with other persons had forcefully entered into the residence and has hurled filthy abuses and later on they have taken out a burning wood from the fire place and had assaulted on the right hand of the victim, resulting into the fracture and, consequently, the said statement as recorded by PW2 Rambahadur was also supported by the version extended by PW1 Babita, who supported the contention, an happening about the incident which occurred on 5th October, 2008, resulting into commission of offence under Sections 452, 325, 504 and 506 I.P.C. 6. Further on scrutiny of the statement of PW1 Babita and PW2 Rambahadur, it was found by the learned Trial Court that on scrutiny of their statement, the occurrence of fact of the incident of 5th October, 2008 remained un-controvered by the evidence which was led by the defence in support of their case, and its comparative scrutiny with the evidence of the prosecution, which was led before the Courts below. 7. Consequently, the police conducted an investigation and after preparing the site plan of the map, which finds place on record as Ex.K-4, the place of occurrence is shown to be inside the room of the house belonging to the victim complainant. 7. Consequently, the police conducted an investigation and after preparing the site plan of the map, which finds place on record as Ex.K-4, the place of occurrence is shown to be inside the room of the house belonging to the victim complainant. The Ex.1, which is the first information report, which too supports the version of the prosecution with regard to the act of forcefully entering into the house at 12:00 p.m. by the revisionist and inflicting blows on the person of the complainant, causing injuries, which was proved by medical report dated 05.10.2008, which had shown as many as seven injuries caused on the complainant. 8. Even as per the medical report of PW2 Rambahadur, which was Ex.-2 and supplementary medical report which was Ex.K-3, it goes to show that the victim Rambahadur, who was medically examined by the Doctor in the Government Medical Hospital Kichha, it is reported that he has suffered as many as seven injuries on the various parts of the body, i.e. right forearm and hand, right ankle and upper half of left leg. It was reported that injuries 3 and 7 were kept under observation, rest of the injuries were declared as simple injuries by the Doctor, who appeared as PW3 i.e. Dr. R.P.S. Negi. 9. In order to substantiate the propriety of the medical report, even PW3 Dr. It was reported that injuries 3 and 7 were kept under observation, rest of the injuries were declared as simple injuries by the Doctor, who appeared as PW3 i.e. Dr. R.P.S. Negi. 9. In order to substantiate the propriety of the medical report, even PW3 Dr. R.P.S. Negi, who has conducted the medical examination on Rambahadur and he too in his statement recorded and as per his version given in the supplementary report has observed that there was fracture caused on the right hand of the victim Rambahadur and thus on an overall scrutiny of the medical report, which has been placed on record and the statement recorded by the prosecution witnesses and the cross examination which was conducted before the Court below, the factum of occurrence of the incident on 5th October, 2008 and consequential infliction of injuries on the complainant was established in the proceedings held before the Judicial Magistrate because the medical report and the supplementary medical report submitted by the Doctor, who had extended the treatment to the victim remained uncontroverted and looking to the nature of the injuries, which was suffered by the victim Rambahadur and particularly site plan and place of occurrence, the offence under Section 325 IPC is apparently made out, coupled with the fact that even as per the report pertaining to the site plan of the place of occurrence, since it happens to be inside the residence of the victim, it had resulted into an establishment of the offence under Section 452 I.P.C. Consequently, the finding, which has been recorded and arrived at by the Judicial Magistrate in the order dated 9th December, 2010, the Judicial Magistrate has recorded that as per the statement of PW2, which remained un-controverted, apart from proving the act of abusing the complainant, this fact is also proved by the statement of PW1, the daughter of the complainant. The Trial Court held that in the cross examination too , no such question was posed regarding commission of the act of abusing the victim Ram Bahadur, on his denial to vacate the premises occupied by the complainant. 10. The Trial Court held that in the cross examination too , no such question was posed regarding commission of the act of abusing the victim Ram Bahadur, on his denial to vacate the premises occupied by the complainant. 10. Regarding the aspect pertaining to the registration of delayed report by 13 days, the complainant submitted thought he was medically examined on 05.10.2018, but since he was undergoing medical treatment, which resulted in delayed registration of the First Information Report, this Court of the view that looking to the other corresponding evidence, the incident and injuries stand proved, thus, delayed registration of FIR would not be so fatal, as far as when the fact of the incident of 05.10.2018, was not specifically denied by the revisionist. Hence, the findings that on account of an establishment of the offence aforesaid, the revisionist has been directed to undergo a simple imprisonment of six months for offence under Section 452 and a penalty of Rs.5,000/- was imposed against him; for the offence under Section 325 IPC, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- was imposed against him, for the offence under Section 504, he has been directed to undergo imprisonment of one month and for the offence under Section 506 IPC, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment of four months. 11. Being aggrieved against the order of conviction, a Criminal Appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 2010, Khemkaran Gangwar Vs. State of Uttarakhand was preferred by the revisionist before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. The 1st Appellate Court too after considering the set of accusation made by the complainant in the F.I.R. No. 222/2008 dated 18.10.2018, under the aforesaid sections, i.e. 325, 504, 506 and 452 I.P.C. and also after re-appreciating the evidences, which was already produced before the Trial Court, pertaining to the occurrence of the incident, which has occurred in the residence of the victim by the revisionist, who has forcefully entered into the residence and has hit the victim by the wood after taking it from the fire place resulting into seven injuries being inflicted on the body of the victim. The Appellate Court too after considering the propriety and the grounds taken in the Appeal and the law, which was relied by the revisionist before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court also came to the conclusion as far as the commission of offence under Sections 452, 325, 504 and 506 I.P.C. is concerned, the same stood established beyond the doubt as would also be reflected from the order passed by the Court, which has affirmed the judgment of conviction by the impugned Appellate Order dated 12th June, 2015. 12. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the impugned orders on the ground that the registration of the F.I.R. on 18th October, 2008 for an incident, which has occurred on 5th October, 2008 was registered after a long delay of 13 days and hence, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out and further it has been taken in defence that since there already happens to be a civil suit, which is pending prior in time, being i.e. Suit No. 214 of 2006, Rambahadur Vs. Khemkaran, which was filed by the complainant and which was dismissed on 7th August, 2007, it was the sole reason why there was animosity amongst them and the incident of 05.10.2018 was as a consequence of dismissal of the Suit. 13. Be that as it may. But as far as the impact of the civil proceedings, which was dismissed on 7th August, 2007, as against the victim and in favour of Mr. Khemkaran that will have no nexus as far as commission of the criminal offence is concerned, which is altogether under a different prospect, which was to be considered and which has to be considered in accordance to the incident, which has occurred on 5th October, 2008 and, which stood established by the evidence on record. 14. In view of the evidences, which was led by the prosecution and the manner in which it has been appreciated by both the Courts below, wherein, it has been settled down that the offence was established beyond doubt and hence, the punishment, which was imposed by the Court below, which was to run concurrently cannot be faulted with. 15. 14. In view of the evidences, which was led by the prosecution and the manner in which it has been appreciated by both the Courts below, wherein, it has been settled down that the offence was established beyond doubt and hence, the punishment, which was imposed by the Court below, which was to run concurrently cannot be faulted with. 15. For the reasons assigned above, apart from it, the ground, which has been taken in the revision for delayed lodging of the F.I.R. will not be so fatal to dilute the offence itself, which otherwise stands established before the Court below on appreciation of the evidence. Even otherwise also, when a person is inflicted wounds by the incident of 5th October, 2008, obviously, he would be first engaging himself to get an appropriate medical treatment rather than rushing for the registration of the F.I.R. Hence, delayed registration of the F.I.R. on 18th October, 2008, particularly when the nature of the injuries, which has been suffered by the victim, the same has not been put to challenge in the Revision nor its propriety has been put to challenge pertaining to the report given by the Medical expert, this Court is of the view that the sentence as imposed by both the Courts below suffers from no apparent error either procedural or a wrongful appreciation of evidence on record and thus, it does not call for any interference by the Revisional Court. 16. Consequently, this Court does not find any merit in the Revision. The Revision is dismissed. As a result thereto the bail which has been granted by this Court on 24th July, 2015, is cancelled. The bail bonds, which were executed in support of the bail is forfeited and the revisionist is directed to surrender himself forthwith before the Magistrate concerned, who will take him in custody forthwith, in order to undergo the sentence as imposed by the judgments of the Courts below, which are under challenge in the present Revision.