Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 379 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Vikram Singh

2023-06-27

VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : This appeal, under section 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.10.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Chamoli in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2004, whereby said court has acquitted the accused/appellants Vikram Singh and Jaibeer Singh under Section 307 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the injured P.W.1 Khushal Singh gave an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as in Cr.P.C.) in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli against seven persons including the present respondents, and their associates, namely, Vikram Singh, Pratap Singh, Smt. Aalmi Devi, Km. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the injured P.W.1 Khushal Singh gave an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as in Cr.P.C.) in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli against seven persons including the present respondents, and their associates, namely, Vikram Singh, Pratap Singh, Smt. Aalmi Devi, Km. Vimla, Jaibeer Singh, Khilaaf Singh and Darshan Singh with the allegations that Khilaaf Singh and his son including the present respondents were having some animosity with him; on 24.07.2004 when injured P.W.1 Khushal Singh was sitting at the residence of P.W.4 Paar Singh, after completing the work of laying the lintel on the roof on his house, then respondents and their associates came there and beated him badly and injured him with a screwdriver and tried to kill him by a knife; that, the injury received in this incident the bleeding started from the head and ear of the injured P.W.1 Khusal Singh; that, on hearing the hue and cry and the commotion, some people saved PW1 Khusal from the clutches of the respondents and their associates; that, after hearing the commotion the witnesses, namely, PW3 Bhaktawar Singh, PW4 Paar Singh, PW5 Chander Singh, PW7 Meherbaan Singh and others also came there and intervened but respondents and their associates beated Bhaktawar Singh also and thereafter they left the place; that, PW3 Bhaktawar Singh, PW4 Paar Singh, PW5 Chander Singh, PW7 Mehrbaan Singh and some other persons took him to the house of the Village Headman as he was unconscious; that, suddenly the respondents and their associates again came at the house of the Village Headman and they started beating him badly and left the place with dire consequences of throwing the injured P.W.1 Khushal Singh in Pinder River; that, thereafter, he was kept in protection in the house of the village Headman; that, next day injured P.W.1 Khushal Singh and others went to Gopeshwar; that, as it was very late, he was medically examined on 26.07.2004 and after medical examination, the complaint case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was registered in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli against the respondents, on which the order was passed, and the F.I.R. No. 5 of 2007 was registered; that, the charge sheet was filed (annexed at page no.18) under Sections 307, 504 & 506 (2) I.P.C. against two accused persons i.e. present respondents, namely, Jaiveer Singh and Vikram Singh; that, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, and the charges were framed against the present respondents under Section 307 I.P.C. 3. So as to hold accused person guilty, prosecution has examined eight witnesses i.e. PW1 Khushal Singh, injured; PW2 Dr. R.S. Seepal, who examined the injured on 26.07.2004, eye witnesses PW3 Bakhtawar Singh, PW4 Paar Singh, PW5 Chander Singh, PW6 Umaid Singh, village Headman, PW7 Meharban and PW8 Kamleshwar Prasad, Patwari (Investigating Officer). 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the evidence led by the parties, by the impugned judgment, the trial court has acquitted the respondents from the charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. Hence the present appeal by the State, assailing the acquittal of the accused person. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that all the witnesses are trustworthy and consistent in their testimony and the only witness who has not completely supported the case of the prosecution is PW6 Umaid Singh i.e. the village Headman. He would further submit that even the most of the part that PW6 stated that also gives strong corroboration to the testimonies of the other witnesses. He would further submit that PW1 Khushal Singh, injured has specifically stated that the present respondents beated him with kick and fists and injured him with screw driver and Jaibeer Singh tried to kill him with knife. He further stated that he was taken in unconscious state at the residence of Village Headman, respondents came there and beated him very badly and left the place. He would submit that the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses are also same, therefore, the court below has erred in law in acquitting the respondents. 6. Per contra, counsel for the respondents/accused would submit that the testimony of PW2 Dr. R.S. Seepal, who medically examined the injured PW1 Khushal Singh falsify the case of the prosecution; that, said Doctor stated in the medical examination that the injured PW1 Khushal Singh has received eight injuries on his body and none of the injuries is of the incised wound; that, in the cross examination, PW2 Dr. R.S. Seepal had stated the fact that the injuries found on the person of PW1 Khushal Singh can be received by falling. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. 8. R.S. Seepal had stated the fact that the injuries found on the person of PW1 Khushal Singh can be received by falling. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. 8. The testimony of injured PW1 Khushal Singh is very important as he is the injured and he specifically stated in his testimony that when after laying the lintel on the roof and after having dinner, he was sitting in the house of PW4 Paar Singh, the present respondents along with their associates came at the residence of PW4 Paar Singh; that, the respondent no. 1 was having an iron screwdriver and hit on the head of PW1 Khushal Singh four to five times and respondent no. 2 Jaibeer Singh tried to kill him with a knife on his neck, PW1 Khusal Singh tried to save himself by hand and he started shouting for help, thereafter, PW4 Paar Singh, PW3 Bakhtawar Singh and PW7 Meharban Singh intervened and took him to the house of the village Head Man; however, Vikram and Jaiveer again came at the house of the village Headman and started beating him but the village Headman saved him from their clutches. It is also stated that he was medically examined on 26.04.2007 (medical report is exhibited as Exhibit Ka 1 to the paper book) and thereafter, he gave an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the same was also proved by him as Exhibit Ka 2. This injured witness was cross-examined in detail. However, in the cross examination, there is no suggestion that such incident had not taken place and present respondents/accused did not hit him as stated by him in his examination-in-chief, the only suggestion given by the respondents in their defence was that he had fallen in inebriated condition and he took the name of the respondents wrongly. In the absence of his specific suggestion denying the facts stated in the examination-in-chief, the testimony of the injured PW1 Khushal Singh is uncontroverted and the same is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence. It would be pertinent to mention here that the statements of eye witnesses PW2 Bakhtawar Singh, PW4 Paar Singh, PW5 Chandra Singh are also on the same lines and there is no suggestion to these witnesses in their cross examination that the incident as stated by other witnesses had not taken place. 9. It would be pertinent to mention here that the statements of eye witnesses PW2 Bakhtawar Singh, PW4 Paar Singh, PW5 Chandra Singh are also on the same lines and there is no suggestion to these witnesses in their cross examination that the incident as stated by other witnesses had not taken place. 9. Though PW6 Umaid Singh Village Headman had not completely supported the case of the prosecution but he has specifically stated in his examination-in-chief that injured PW1 Khushal Singh was brought in unconscious condition at his house by PW2 Bakhtawar, PW7 Meharban and PW5 Chander Singh and after some time, the present respondents came at his residence and started talking angrily therefore he had saved the injured PW1 Khushal Singh in his house and no one beated him at the place of his residence. There is a suggestion to this witness that injured PW1 Khushal Singh had made several complaint against his wife, who was the Village Pradhan regarding some development projects during the tenure of his wife as a Gram Pradhan. However, it is pertinent to observe here that in most part of the testimony of PW6 Umaid Singh corroborates the case of the prosecution. It is trite that the evidence of the witness, not supporting the prosecution case in entirety, is not totally unbelievable. The part of his testimony which is consistent with the case of the prosecution, can be taken in reference for its corroborative value. 10. In the considered view of this Court the judgment of the learned trial court is erroneous and not based on the evidence and facts proved before it during the trial and the same is liable to be set-aside. However, it is also pertinent to mention that PW2 Dr. R.S. Seepal in his evidence has specifically stated that the injuries on the body of the injured PW1 Khushal Singh could have been inflicted by some hard and blunt object within 40 hours of the medical examination. Admittedly, there is no incised wound on the body of the injured PW1 Khushal Singh; but, the perusal of the medical report was proved as Exhibit Ka3 by PW2 Dr. R.S. Seepal. It is not in evidence that the injuries were dangerous to life of the injured PW1 Khushal Singh. 11. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondents/accused has supported the impugned judgment. R.S. Seepal. It is not in evidence that the injuries were dangerous to life of the injured PW1 Khushal Singh. 11. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondents/accused has supported the impugned judgment. She would submit that according to the report of Doctor, the injuries received by the injured PW1 Khushal Singh were inflicted by the respondents/accused, are simple in nature, therefore, the court below has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order dated 11.10.2005 by acquitting the respondents/accused under Section 307 I.P.C. 12. In the considered view of this Court, the injuries on the body of the injured PW1 Khushal Singh are simple in nature. It would not be out of place that as per Section 222 of Cr.P.C. when a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it. 13. Admittedly, the present respondents were charged for an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC but it is not proved on record that in this incident some injuries were inflicted by the respondents that could have been dangerous to his life as defined under Section 307 of IPC. However, it is amply proved from the evidence placed before the court that the present respondents beated the injured PW1 Khushal Singh and inflicted the kind of injuries, which can be termed as simple injuries. 14. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, and after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 11.10.2005 acquitting the respondents/accused is herby set aside. However, having considered the F.I.R., injury report and other material, an offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the respondents/accused are convicted under Section 323 of IPC. Insofar as sentence is concerned, it is evident from the record that the respondent/accused had remained in jail for a period of 18 days during the course of investigation, thus, the respondents/accused are sentenced for a period of 18 days, which they had already undergone in the case, as stated above. 15. Insofar as sentence is concerned, it is evident from the record that the respondent/accused had remained in jail for a period of 18 days during the course of investigation, thus, the respondents/accused are sentenced for a period of 18 days, which they had already undergone in the case, as stated above. 15. So far as injured is concerned, as the incident is of the year 2004, the interest of justice would be served if the injured is granted relief in the form of compensation as per Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. specifically contemplates payment of compensation to the victim/injured persons. 16. In view of the above, the Appeal is disposed of with the direction to the respondents/accused to pay as compensation of Rs.5000/- each to the injured Khushal Singh. The trial Court shall disburse the amount of compensation in favour of injured Khushal Singh. It is made clear that in case the respondents/accused fails to deposit the amount of compensation with the trial court, the trial court may enforce the process for recovery of the said amount of compensation as per procedure for recovery of land revenue. 17. Let the Lower Court Record be transmitted back for ensuring compliance.