Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 403 (UTT)

Madan Kumar v. State Of Uttaranchal

2020-10-12

N.S.DHANIK

body2020
JUDGMENT N. S. Dhanik, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.9.2004, passed by the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 304 (II) IPC and each one of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. Facts of the case are that on 29.3.2002 at 12.45 PM, a report was lodged by Amarjeet (PW3) stating that at 12 noon on the said date, while celebrations of 'Holi Milan' were going on, a scuffle took place between the appellants and informant's Balmeek Tanti (deceased) on the issue of changing the cassette of deck. The deck was being played by Balmeek Tanti and the appellants insisted for changing the cassette. In the scuffle, Bameek Tanti fell down and died at the spot. 3. After investigation, the police submitted the chargesheet against the accused appellants for the offence under Section 304 IPC. The trial court framed the charge for the said offence against the accused appellants. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as six witnesses. Out of the six prosecution witnesses, PW1, PW2 and PW3 are the eyewitnesses of the alleged incident, PW4 is the scribe of the report, PW5 is the Investigation Officer and PW6 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy of the dead body. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, statements of the accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 CrPC wherein though the appellants admitted the death of Balmeek Tanti in the scuffle and their presence at the spot on the relevant date and time but stated that it was not known as to on whose push, the deceased fell down and died. 4. I gave considerable thought to the rival contentions and carefully perused material on record. 5. Pw1 Santu Kumar in his testimony has stated that in March 2002, he, PW2, PW3, the deceased and the appellants were living in the same colony and they were neighbours residing in very close vicinity. At about 12-1 o'clock in the noon on the day of Holi, the appellants came in the room of Balmeek Tanti, who was playing the deck. Appellants insisted for changing the cassette, but Balmeek Tanti refused to do so. Scuffle took place on this issue between the appellants and Bameek Tanti in which Balmeek Tanti fell down and died. At about 12-1 o'clock in the noon on the day of Holi, the appellants came in the room of Balmeek Tanti, who was playing the deck. Appellants insisted for changing the cassette, but Balmeek Tanti refused to do so. Scuffle took place on this issue between the appellants and Bameek Tanti in which Balmeek Tanti fell down and died. In the cross-examination also, this witness has stated that the Balmeek Tanti was pushed to the ground by the appellants and at that time, this witness was present at the spot. This witness denied the suggestion that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol or was suffering from epilepsy. 6. Pw2 Sanjay Kumar and PW3 Amarjeet Singh (who is also the informant) are also the eyewitness of the incident and they have corroborated the testimony of PW1. Despite searching lengthy cross- examination, nothing could be elicited from these witnesses which may help the appellants. 7. Pw6 Dr. Bharat Kishor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, stated in his testimony that the deceased suffered following three ante mortem injuries: (i) A contusion of 2 x 2 cm on the right jaw. (ii) A contusion of 2 x 2 cm on the back side of the head (iii) A contusion of 2 x 2 cm on the right side of the neck. 8. Pw6 has stated that in the internal examination, he found blood clot spread in the area of 4 x 4 cm in the back side of the head. He has also stated that the deceased died as a result of the ante mortem injuries suffered by him, which was possible to have been suffered at around 12 o'clock in the noon on 29.3.2002. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that as per the prosecution story, the deceased died in the scuffle, but PW3 has stated that the deceased was assaulted by Danda, which is not mentioned in the FIR nor any Danda was recovered. Learned Counsel also contended that as per the testimony of PW6, who conducted the post-mortem examination, injury no. (i) and (iii) are possible to have been suffered from a lathi or blunt object, whereas the prosecution story is that the deceased died on account of scuffle. Assault from lathi is not mentioned in the FIR or in the statements of PW1 and PW2. PW6 Dr. (i) and (iii) are possible to have been suffered from a lathi or blunt object, whereas the prosecution story is that the deceased died on account of scuffle. Assault from lathi is not mentioned in the FIR or in the statements of PW1 and PW2. PW6 Dr. Bharat Kishor has also stated that none of the injuries was possible to have been suffered from the fist. 10. I do not find any force in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellants. In the present case, FIR was promptly lodged. Prosecution examined three eyewitnesses i.e. PW1, PW2 and PW3. Being next- door neighbours, their presence at the spot was natural. All three witnesses have supported the prosecution case. None of them could be shaken in their cross-examination. It is also undisputed that all the three eyewitnesses, deceased and the accused appellants were living in the same colony and were neighbouers. Scuffle and death of the deceased on the alleged date and time is also undisputed. There is no motive to falsely implicate the appellants. 11. Further, ocular evidence is also supported by the medical evidence. PW6 Dr. Bharat Kishor has stated that the deceased died on account of the ante mortem injuries suffered by him. Injury no. (ii) was possible to have been suffered in the scuffle and on account of free fall. So far as the contention of learned Counsel that Injury no. (i) and (iii) were possible to have been suffered from lathi or any blunt object, it is proved by the evidence that the deceased fell down on the floor in the said scuffle. Thus the deceased suffered these two injuries on account of his fall on the floor. 12. Minor discrepancies and contradictions are bound to occur in the case of a truthful witness and the same do not go to the root of the matter and hence, not much emphasis can be attached to such discrepancies. As regards the FIR, the law is fairly well settled that FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of entire events and cannot contain the minutest details of the incident. If the material facts have been disclosed in the FIR, that is sufficient. 13. As regards the FIR, the law is fairly well settled that FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of entire events and cannot contain the minutest details of the incident. If the material facts have been disclosed in the FIR, that is sufficient. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt that on 29.3.2002 at about 12 noon, the appellants inflicted injuries to the deceased with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death and thereby committed an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order. There is no force in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. Conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are affirmed. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence. 14. Let a copy of this judgment, along with the LCR, be sent to the Court below to ensure its compliance.