Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 31 (UTT)

State Of Uttarakhand v. Sunil Chauhan

2021-01-12

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

body2021
JUDGMENT Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ. - Aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.02.2013, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in Session Trial No.82 of 2008, whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Mr. Ramesh Beragi and Mr. Rajesh Hani for the offences under Sections 323 read with 34, 307 read with 34 and Section 452 of IPC, the State of Uttarakhand has filed the present appeal before this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, on 29.04.1998, the complainant, Mr. Jawahar Singh Parihar (P.W. 2), filed a written report (Exhibit Ka-1) before the Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein he claimed that on 24.04.1998, he was returning from Delhi and going to Almora with his wife, and gunman, Mr. Bhawan Singh Dhami (P.W. 4). On the way to Rudrapur, they stopped at his factory located at Kuchal Industries. After some time, few unknown persons forcefully entered his factory, and tried to kill him. These persons had come for extorting money from him. These persons also misbehaved with his wife. When these persons fired from their country-made pistol, the pellets hit the face of his gunman, Mr. Bhawan Singh Dhami (P.W. 4). He immediately told his gunman to fire in the air. These persons tried to snatch the stun gun belonging to his gunman. During the scuffle, bullets were fired. These persons snatched the gunman's gun. They fired at him on his head. However, the pellets did not hit his gunman, but hit the stones. His gunman picked up his gun and both, he and his gunman, ran into the factory. He further claimed that he, his wife and his gunman went to the Police Station Rudrapur at 4 PM.However, despite his giving a written report at the police station, the police refused to register the report. Instead, they were arrested by the police. He further claimed that he sent his wife home along with a friend of his. He further claimed that, those who had assaulted him and his gunman introduced themselves. Their names are Sunil Chauhan, Dhananjay Shukla, Ramesh Beragi, Rajesh Hani and two more persons. Lastly, according to him, the incident had occurred on 24.04.1998 between 03:35 to 03:40 PM. He further claimed that his gunman Bhawan Singh Dhami (PW4) has not been given any medical treatment. Their names are Sunil Chauhan, Dhananjay Shukla, Ramesh Beragi, Rajesh Hani and two more persons. Lastly, according to him, the incident had occurred on 24.04.1998 between 03:35 to 03:40 PM. He further claimed that his gunman Bhawan Singh Dhami (PW4) has not been given any medical treatment. Therefore, he prayed that not only for impartial investigation, but also that his gunman should be given medical treatment immediately. 3. On the basis of this written report which was sent by Mr. Jawahar Singh Parihar (PW2), through the Jailor of Sub-Jail Haldwani to the police station, a formal FIR, namely FIR No. 129 of 1998, was chalked out. 4. After investigation, the police initially submitted a Negative Final Report (FR), inter alia, on the ground that the complainant and his gunman were already involved in FIR No.299 of 1998, for offences under Sections 302/307 of IPC. Therefore, the FIR lodged by the complainant was merely a clever play for protecting themselves. However, by order dated 11.02.2000, the learned Trial Court refused to accept the Negative Final Report. Subsequently, the police filed a charge-sheet against the three accused persons mentioned hereinabove, for the offences under Sections 323 read with 34, 307 read with 34 and Section 452 of IPC. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and submitted eight documents. The defence neither examined any witness nor submitted any document. 6. After appreciating the evidence brought by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court acquitted the three accused persons by judgment dated 25.02.2013. Hence, the present appeal before this Court. 7. Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, has vehemently pleaded that the learned Trial Court has ignored the fact that the FIR is not meant to be encyclopedic in its content. Merely because certain vital facts were not mentioned in the FIR lodged by Mr. Jawahar Singh Parihar (PW2), it would not cast any doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. Secondly, the learned Trial Court is heavily swayed by the fact that there are cross-cases between the parties, the complainant and the accused persons. Moreover, the Trial Court is carried away by the fact that the complainant Mr. Jawahar Singh Parihar (PW2) and other accused persons were facing Session Trial No.54 of 2007 for the offences under Section 302 of IPC for having caused the death of Dhananjay Shukla. Although, Mr. Moreover, the Trial Court is carried away by the fact that the complainant Mr. Jawahar Singh Parihar (PW2) and other accused persons were facing Session Trial No.54 of 2007 for the offences under Section 302 of IPC for having caused the death of Dhananjay Shukla. Although, Mr. Guman Singh Mehta (PW1), Mr. Jawahar Singh Parihar (PW2) and Mr. Bhawan Singh (PW4) were convicted by judgment dated 25.02.2013, but by the judgment dated 30.05.2014, this Court has acquitted all three of them. This clearly proves that the complainant was innocent, and it is the accused persons namely Sunil Chauhan, Ramesh Beragi and Rajesh Hani, who had committed crime. Moreover,since Rajesh Hani (A3) has died during the pendency of the present appeal, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, submits that the appeal against Rajesh Hani (A3) has abated. Therefore, the present appeal is only against Mr. Sunil Chauhan and Mr. Ramesh Beragi (Al and A2 respectively). 8. On the other hand, Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, learned counsel for respondent nos.l and 2 has raised the following counter-arguments:- (i) The scope of interference in an acquittal order is extremely limited one. The High Court, should, ordinarily, not interfere with an acquittal order, unless, it is convinced that the judgment is a perverse one. However, the impugned judgment is based on a critical analysis of the evidence brought by the prosecution. (ii) Since the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the Trial Court was justified in granting the benefit of doubt to the accused persons, and in acquitting them. (iii) The presumption of innocence is strengthened by an acquittal order. (iv) The learned Trial Court has noticed the fact that the FIR lodged by Mr. Jawahar Singh Parihar (PW2), is delayed by five days. Although, it is claimed that the incident had occurred on 24.04.1998, the FIR was not lodged till 29.04.1998. Moreover, a completely different story was narrated. Thus, the complainant cooked up a story in order to protect himself from the cross-case wherein it was clearlyclaimed that it is the complainant who had killed Dhananjay Shukla. (v) The critical analysis of the testimonies of Mr. Jawahar Singh Parihar (PW2), Smt. Kunti Parihar (PW3) and Mr. Bhawan Singh Dhami (PW4) clearly reveals that there are gaping holes in the testimonies, and there are major contradictions within their testimonies. (v) The critical analysis of the testimonies of Mr. Jawahar Singh Parihar (PW2), Smt. Kunti Parihar (PW3) and Mr. Bhawan Singh Dhami (PW4) clearly reveals that there are gaping holes in the testimonies, and there are major contradictions within their testimonies. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused persons. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the impugned judgment. 10. In the case of Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka [ (2007) 4 SCC 415 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has Lald down the principles with regard to the scope and ambit of interference by a High Court with an acquittal order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- "(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal.Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion". 11. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Naresh [ (2009) 9 SCC 368 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that "an order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there are some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused". 12. These principles have recently been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anwar AH & another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [ (2020) 10 SCC 166 ]. Therefore, these settled principles of criminal jurisprudence would have to be kept in mind while examining the legality or illegality of the impugned judgment. 13. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that the learned Trial Court has examined the evidence in detail. The learned Trial Court has noticed the fact that the FIR lodged by Mr. Therefore, these settled principles of criminal jurisprudence would have to be kept in mind while examining the legality or illegality of the impugned judgment. 13. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that the learned Trial Court has examined the evidence in detail. The learned Trial Court has noticed the fact that the FIR lodged by Mr. Jawahar Singh Parihar (P.W. 2) is delayed by five days. Moreover, there are major omissions in the FIR. In the FIR itself, it is not mentioned that Mr. Suresh Chauhan (Al) was armed with a country-made pistol. Secondly, it is nowhere mentioned that Dhananjay Shukla was hit by a firearm. Moreover, despite the fact that the alleged assailants were unknown to him, the complainant has neither described the accused persons, nor identified them in any Test Identification Parade (TIP). Lastly, his testimony is belied by themedical evidence. For, although the complainant claims that Mr. Bhawan Singh Dhami (P.W. 4), the gunman, was injured by the pellets which struck his face. According to Dr. S.K. Mishra (PW6), there were no firearm injuries in the face of Mr. Bhawan Singh (PW4). 14. Similarly, while critically analyzing the testimonies of Mr. Guman Singh Mehta (P.W. 1), Smt. Kunti Parihar (P.W. 3) and Mr. Bhawan Singh Dhami (P.W. 4), the learned Trial Court has noticed gaping holes and contradictions in the testimonies of these witnesses, who claimed to be the eye-witnesses of the incident. Therefore, the acquittal order has been passed after critically analyzing the evidence brought by the prosecution. Hence, the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted. Moreover, since the conclusion is based on a detailed analysis of the evidence, the judgment is not a perverse one. 15. For the reasons stated, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal filed by the State. Therefore, the appeal is hereby dismissed.