Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 306 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Tikam Singh

2023-05-15

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Present Government Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.01.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ IVth Fast Track Court, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 255 of 2001, “State vs. Tikam Singh and three Others”, whereby, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondents-accused persons of the charges under Section 379, Section 411, Section 323 read with Section 34, Section 332 read with Section 34, Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence on record is that on 09.10.2000, Forest Guard-Om Pal Singh (PW3), Forest Guard-Hari Ballabh Pant (PW4), Beat Assistant-Rakesh Singh (PW1) and Daily Wager-Mukhram (PW2) were patrolling in forest Beat No. 6 of the reserved forest. They heard the sound of a saw. When they went in the direction of the sound, they saw that respondents-accused persons were cutting two trees. When they tried to apprehend the accused persons, they fired at them. At around 12:30 p.m., accused Barisu, Tahir and Ahmad Hasan were apprehended. While accused Tikam Singh managed to escape from the spot. They assaulted Mukhram (PW2) with sticks at the time of their arrest, due to which, he received injuries. Recovery Memo (Ext. Ka.2) was prepared on the spot, which was signed by the employees. Copy of Recovery Memo was given to the accused persons. Being a forest area, public witness could not be secured. Saw (Material Ext. 3), axe (Material Ext. 4), hollow cartridge 12 bore (Material Ext. 5) and cut rosewood trees (Material Ext. 1 and 2) were seized. Medical examination of Mukhram (PW2) was conducted and a Written Information (Ext. Ka. 1) along with the medical report (Ext. Ka. 8) of Mukhram (PW2) was given to the police by Om Pal Singh (PW3). 3. An FIR (Ext. Ka. 5) was registered on 09.10.2000 at 15:30 hrs. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka. 4) was filed by Sub-Inspector Gurbachan Singh (PW5). 4. The case was committed to the Court of Session. 5. Charges were framed against the respondents-accused persons. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. 7. Ka. 4) was filed by Sub-Inspector Gurbachan Singh (PW5). 4. The case was committed to the Court of Session. 5. Charges were framed against the respondents-accused persons. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. 7. Statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein they denied the entire evidence of the prosecution. 8. According to accused Ahmad Hasan, a case of murder of one Ismail was pending against forest employee Shiv Kumar, Mukesh and Sukhpal, in which he (Ahmad Hasan) was a witness. Therefore, in order to put pressure on him, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. 9. The case of the accused Barisu and Tahir is that the police had taken them from their house and implicated them in this false case. In support of their case, they have examined Mohammad Idrish (DW1) in their defence evidence. 10. Learned Trial Court heard arguments, appreciated the evidence and held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General, submitted that learned Trial Court has completely overlooked the glaring facts of the case, according to which, the involvement of accused persons has been proved; evidence of prosecution’s witnesses are trustworthy; therefore, judgment of acquittal is not justified in the eyes of law. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Mohd. Umar, learned counsel for the respondents, supported the impugned judgment. 13. The law is well settled that the judgment of acquittal strengthen the presumption of the innocence of the accused. It is equally the duty of the Court to see that the guilt do not escape punishment. Therefore, I have carefully assessed the evidence, adduced by the prosecution. 14. (PW1) Rakesh Singh, (PW2) Mukhram, (PW3) Om Pal Singh and (PW4) Hari Ballabh Pant were members of the arresting party. They have reiterated the statements mentioned in the Written Information (Ext. Ka. 1) in their examination-in-chief. 15. (PW5) Sub-Inspector Gurbachan Singh and (PW7) Sub-Inspector Ram Bahadur Singh are Investigating Officer. 16. (PW6) Assistant Sub-Inspector Jagdish Kumar is the scriber of the First Information Report (Ext. Ka. 5). 17. According to Dr. They have reiterated the statements mentioned in the Written Information (Ext. Ka. 1) in their examination-in-chief. 15. (PW5) Sub-Inspector Gurbachan Singh and (PW7) Sub-Inspector Ram Bahadur Singh are Investigating Officer. 16. (PW6) Assistant Sub-Inspector Jagdish Kumar is the scriber of the First Information Report (Ext. Ka. 5). 17. According to Dr. R.R. Verma (PW8), on 09.10.2000 at 1:30 p.m., he had examined the injuries of Mukhram (PW2). 18. As per the prosecution’s case, respondent-accused Tikam Singh had fired and other accused persons had hit Mukhram (PW2) with sticks, in which, Mukhram (PW2) received injuries, and, thereafter, a Recovery Memo (Ext.Ka.2) was prepared on the spot, but, these alleged incidents are not mentioned in the Recovery Memo (Ext.Ka.2). 19. According to the prosecution, Mukhram (PW2) was assaulted by accused persons with sticks at the scene of the incident. Mukhram (PW2) has stated in his cross-examination that he was hit only by Tahir. Tahir hit him twice with a stick. 20. Rakesh Singh (PW1) has stated that Recovery Memo (Ext.Ka.2) did not mention that Mukhram (PW2) was injured and respondent-accused Tikam Singh had fired, nor did the Recovery Memo (Ext.Ka.2) contain the names of those who assaulted with sticks. 21. Rakesh Singh (PW1) has stated that the Recovery Memo (Ext.Ka.2) was prepared on the spot and the Written Report (Ext.Ka.1) was written at the police station. Mukhram (PW2), in his cross-examination, has stated that Written Report (Ext.Ka.1) and Recovery Memo (Ext.Ka.2) were prepared at the police station. Om Pal Singh (PW3) has deposed that the Written Report (Ext.Ka.1) and Recovery Memo (Ext.Ka.2) were written on the spot. 22. As per the Written Information (Ext.Ka.1), Mukhram’s medical report was also available at the time of lodging the First Information Report. On the contrary, Mukhram (PW2) has stated that he went to get his treatment after the Written Report (Ext.Ka.1) was prepared at the police station. 23. Hari Ballabh Pant (PW4) has stated that the Wood, Saw, Axe and Hollow Cartridge were sealed on the spot. Rakesh Singh (PW1) has stated that none of these articles were sealed on the spot. 24. Written Information (Ext.Ka.1) states that the accused persons were given copies of the Recovery Memo (Ext.Ka.2). Rakesh Singh (PW1) and Om Pal Singh (PW3) have stated that copy of the Recovery Memo (Ext.Ka.2) was not given to the accused persons. 25. Rakesh Singh (PW1) has stated that none of these articles were sealed on the spot. 24. Written Information (Ext.Ka.1) states that the accused persons were given copies of the Recovery Memo (Ext.Ka.2). Rakesh Singh (PW1) and Om Pal Singh (PW3) have stated that copy of the Recovery Memo (Ext.Ka.2) was not given to the accused persons. 25. After appreciating the evidence available on record, material contradictions are found in the evidence of the witnesses, examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the statements of the prosecution’s witnesses do not inspire confidence. No positive, cogent and reliable evidence are found to be placed on record against the respondents-accused persons by the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 26. On a detailed examination of the evidence of the prosecution, this Court upholds the view taken by learned Trial Court. In my considered view, the prosecution has failed to establish the commission of alleged offence by respondents-accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, passed by learned Trial Court. 27. As a result, Government Appeal is liable to be dismissed; the same is dismissed accordingly. 28. Respondent No.1-Tikam Singh is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 29. Respondent No.2-Barisu, Respondent No.3-Tahir and Respondent No.4-Ahmad Hasan are in judicial custody. They shall be released from jail forthwith, in case, they are not otherwise required in any other case. 30. Registry is directed to provide a copy of this judgment to the Superintendent of District Jail, Haridwar and the Trial Court for intimation and compliance.