Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 411 (UTT)

Gurdeep Singh v. State Of Uttaranchal

2020-10-14

N.S.DHANIK

body2020
JUDGMENT N. S. Dhanik, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.4.2004, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/IIIrd FTC, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 307, 332 and 353 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence under Section 307 IPC; to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 332 IPC and to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 353 IPC. 2. Facts of the case are that on 3.12.2001 at 1.05 PM, Constable Meghraj Singh lodged an FIR stating that at about 12.30 PM on the said date, when he was coming from Malik Colony after doing the official work and was going towards the police station, suddenly Gurdeep Singh and his two companions met him on the Malik Colony road and they stopped the informant and started saying him that he inquires and searches about them and Gurdeep Singh opened fire from his pistol with intention to kill the informant, who suffered the gunshot on his right hand. Thereafter other companions of the appellant also opened fire. On hearing the alarm raised by the informant people of the vicinity came at the spot and thereafter the appellant and his companions fled away from the spot. Meanwhile, Assistant S.I. Nandan Singh Bhandari and employees of the Adharsh Colony Chowki arrived at the spot. 3. After investigation, the police submitted the chargesheet against the accused appellants for the aforementioned offences. Prosecution examined the informant and the injured Constable Megh Raj as PW1, ASI Nandan Singh Bhandari as PW2, the Investigation Officer SI (Rtd.) Lal Singh Dhonia as PW3, Dr. Suresh Kumar, who medically examined the informant, as PW4 and Sub Inspector R.R Pathak, who made the initial investigation of the case, as PW5. In defence, the appellant produced Jagir Singh as DW1. 4. I gave considerable thought to the rival contentions and carefully perused material on record. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the entire prosecution story is concocted and the appellant has been falsely implicated. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that neither any weapon nor any cartridge has been recovered. Appellant was not arrested at the spot and even his companions could not be arrested till date. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the entire prosecution story is concocted and the appellant has been falsely implicated. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that neither any weapon nor any cartridge has been recovered. Appellant was not arrested at the spot and even his companions could not be arrested till date. Learned Counsel also contended that there is no independent witness of the alleged incident. 6. Learned State Counsel argued that the prosecution has produced credible and sufficient evidence and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the evidence, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and order. In the present case, injured has been examined as PW1. He has fully corroborated the prosecution story. He has stated that at about 12.30 Pm on 3.12.2001, when he was returning to the Police Station Rudrapur, the appellant and his two companions met him in the way. Appellant told him, "you inquire too much about me and also visit my house; you do not know me". The injured opposed them. Thereafter the appellant and his companions opened fire on the injured with intention to kill him. The injured suffered injuries in his right hand and stomach. Appellant suffered injuries of the gunshot fired by the appellant. On hearing the alarm raised by the injured, ASI Nandan Singh Bhandari and Constable Mohd. Sayeed came at the spot, who challenged the accused persons and saved the informant/injured. Thereafter the appellant and his companions fled away from the spot. Despite searching lengthy cross- examination, the injured could not be shaken. 8. Pw2 ASI Nandan Singh Bhandari has also corroborated the testimony of injured. Nothing could be elicited in his cross-examination which may create any doubt on his testimony. 9. The testimony of the injured is also supported by the medical evidence. PW4 Dr. Suresh Kumar has stated that he had examined the injured at 2 o'clock on 3.12.2001. 8. Pw2 ASI Nandan Singh Bhandari has also corroborated the testimony of injured. Nothing could be elicited in his cross-examination which may create any doubt on his testimony. 9. The testimony of the injured is also supported by the medical evidence. PW4 Dr. Suresh Kumar has stated that he had examined the injured at 2 o'clock on 3.12.2001. Following injuries were found on the body of the injured: (i) A red lacerated wound, bone deep over the dorsal aspect of the base of right middle finger, size 2 cm x 2 cm x bone deep, probing cannot be done because of profuse bleeding and severe pain, margins inverted and irregular, blackening present, multiple tiny abrasions, black in colour with fresh bleeding, K.U.O., advised x-ray of the right hand. (ii) A red lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, over the palmer aspect of the right hand, probing cannot be done due to profuse bleeding, K.U.O., advised x-ray of the right hand. (iii) A red abraded contusion 5 cm x 5 cm over the lateral aspect of the right side of abdomen, 23 cm below the right nipple. 10. In the opinion of Dr. Suresh Kumar, the above injuries were caused by firearm and these injuries were fresh in duration. In the x-ray report, commuted fracture was found in the middle finger of the right hand of the injured. 11. Thus, it is evident that the ocular version is supported by the medical evidence. There is nothing to doubt the testimony of the injured. As regards the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no independent witness in the present case, in my opinion if the prosecution can bring home their case by injured eyewitness and medical evidence, there is no need for the prosecution to examine more witnesses. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and testimony of such a witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for rejection of his evidence. It is the quality of the evidence which matters, and not the quantity. Learned trial court has properly examined these aspects. It is the quality of the evidence which matters, and not the quantity. Learned trial court has properly examined these aspects. Furthermore, the accused appellant was given opportunity under Section 313 CrPC to explain the circumstances and to put forward his defence but the accused appellant chose to maintain complete denial even when his statement under Section 313 CrPC was being recorded. 12. As regards the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that weapon used in the commission of crime and the cartridges could not be recovered, it is settled law that benefit of omissions or lapses of perfunctory investigation cannot be extended to the accused when the prosecution version is proved by the testimony of injured eyewitness and the medical evidence. 13. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant are affirmed. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall be taken into custody 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.