Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 285 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Sadan Pal

2023-05-02

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. 1. These two Government Appeals have been filed against a common judgment dated 08.08.2007, passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 334 of 2004, State vs. Sadan Pal and Sessions Trial No. 261 of 2005, State vs. Bijendra, by which, the respondents-accused persons have been acquitted of the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). Government Appeal No. 522 of 2007 will be leading file. 2. In brief, the prosecution’s case is that one Liaquat was abducted. Therefore, a Case Crime No. 03 of 2004 under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered. On 10.01.2004, Station Officer, Chandan Singh Chauhan (PW3) and Constable Ram Kumar (PW6) along with other police personnel were on patrolling duty for the purpose of maintaining law and order and were searching for the wanted criminals. When they reached Dhanpura, Chandan Singh Chauhan received an information from Chandra Mohan Singh Negi, Station Officer, Police Station, Khanpur that accused persons of Case Crime No. 03 of 2004, registered under Section 364 IPC, are fled away and they were searching them. Chandra Mohan Singh Negi further informed him that Liaquat has escaped from the clutches of the miscreants and is now with them. After receiving the said information, Chandan Singh Chauhan (PW3) along with other police personnel reached the bus stand, Dhanpura. Sub-Inspector Ranjeet Singh (PW4) along with other police personnel met at bridge. They saw that accused persons on a motorcycle (Hero Honda) were coming from the front. Seeing the police personnel, they ran away towards forest. At that time public witness Dilshad (PW1) and Mohd. Ismail (PW2) were present there. Meanwhile, Station Officer, Laksar Preetpal Singh Rautela (PW7) reached there with other police personnel. Accused persons, who were sitting on a motorcycle, opened fire on the police party. Accused-Sadan Pal was apprehended by the police party. Accused Bijendra ran away from the spot. Accused-Sadan Pal was arrested. At that time, Liaquat was present and he identified the accused persons and told that he was abducted by them on 03.01.2004. Accused-Sadan Pal told that the name of the person who ran away is Bijendra. The said motorcycle Hero Honda was taken into possession vide Recovery Memo (Ext. Ka1). The First Information Report (Ext. Ka3) was lodged by Sub-Inspector Chandan Singh Chauhan (PW3) on 10.01.2004 at 19:00 hrs. Accused-Sadan Pal told that the name of the person who ran away is Bijendra. The said motorcycle Hero Honda was taken into possession vide Recovery Memo (Ext. Ka1). The First Information Report (Ext. Ka3) was lodged by Sub-Inspector Chandan Singh Chauhan (PW3) on 10.01.2004 at 19:00 hrs. Charge-sheet (Ext. Ka2) was filed after completion of investigation. 3. Charge under Section 307 IPC was framed. Respondents-accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. 5. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution. 6. Respondents- accused persons did not adduce any defence evidence. 7. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, submitted that Trial Court has committed an error by taking into consideration of the fact that there are contradictions in the statements of the police witnesses and public witnesses. Contradictions are natural. Two public witnesses, namely, Dilshad (PW1) and Mohd. Ismail (PW2) have supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the impugned judgment dated 08.08.2007 is liable to be set-aside. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned Amicus Curiae, has supported the impugned judgment. 9. The law is well settled that the judgment of acquittal strengthen the presumption of the innocence of the accused. Equally, it is the duty of the Court to see that the guilt does not escape from the punishment. Therefore, I have carefully assessed the evidence, adduced by the prosecution. 10. (PW1) Dilshad has deposed that he was in his village on 10.01.2004. He heard that the miscreants were running towards north on a bike. He, Mohd. Ismail (PW2) and others chased the miscreants. He (PW1) chased on a bike. The miscreants were asked to stop. They (miscreants) opened fire. They fired around ten shots, but, no one was hit. Accused-Sadan Pal was apprehended at 2:30 p.m. Sadan Pal had named the absconding person as Bijendra. 11. (PW2) Mohd. Ismail has stated that he was in his house on 10.01.2004. He heard that the miscreants were running towards north on a motorcycle. The police and others chased them. He also chased them on foot. They were chased for about one and half kilometre. 11. (PW2) Mohd. Ismail has stated that he was in his house on 10.01.2004. He heard that the miscreants were running towards north on a motorcycle. The police and others chased them. He also chased them on foot. They were chased for about one and half kilometre. The miscreants fired at them, which did not hit anyone. Sadan Pal was apprehended at around 4:00 p.m. He told that the person who ran away from the spot was Bijendra. 12. (PW3) Sub-Inspector Chandan Singh Chauhan, (PW4) Sub-Inspector Ranjeet Singh, (PW6) Constable Ram Kumar and (PW7) Preetpal Singh Rautela are members of the chasing party. They in their examination-in-chief reiterated the statements made in the recovery memo. (PW5) Sub-Inspector R.S. Rawat is Investigating Officer. 13. The prosecution has to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the alleged offence was committed by the respondents-accused persons. 14. According to examination-in-chief of (PW1) Dilshad, he chased the accused persons on his bike. (PW2) Mohd. Ismail has stated that accused persons were chased for about one and half kilometre and he (PW2) was chasing them on foot. In the said circumstances, these statements are not found reliable. (PW1) Dilshad has stated that the empty cartridges were collected by the police, while (PW3) Sub-Inspector Chandan Singh Chauhan has stated in his cross-examination that no bullet or empty cartridge were recovered from the spot. 15. In the present matter, there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution’s witnesses. Therefore, the statements of the prosecution’s witnesses do not inspire confidence. 16. (PW3) Sub-Inspector Chandan Singh Chauhan has deposed that the bullet fired by the accused persons neither hit any person nor hit the jeep. It is difficult to believe that no one was shot where it is being said that about ten rounds of firing took place. 17. A Case Crime No. 3 of 2004 under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the accused persons. Accused persons were charged of abducting one Liaquat. In the trial of that case, Liaquat had turned hostile and had deposed that he did not recognise the accused persons. According to the prosecution, Liaquat was present at the spot, but the prosecution neither examined him nor mentioned any reason for not examining him. Under the said circumstances, it appears that if Liaquat had been examined by the prosecution, his evidence would not have supported the prosecution’s case. According to the prosecution, Liaquat was present at the spot, but the prosecution neither examined him nor mentioned any reason for not examining him. Under the said circumstances, it appears that if Liaquat had been examined by the prosecution, his evidence would not have supported the prosecution’s case. 18. On a detailed examination and scrutiny of the evidence, produced by the prosecution, this Court upholds the view taken by the Trial Court. In my considered view, the prosecution has failed to establish the commission of alleged offence by the respondents-accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. They deserve benefit of doubt. I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the view taken by learned Trial Court and see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order, passed by learned Trial Court. 19. As a result, both the Government Appeals are liable to be dismissed. The Government Appeals are dismissed accordingly. 20. A copy of this judgment be placed in the connected Government Appeal.