Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 517 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Samay Singh

2023-09-11

PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2023
JUDGMENT : Pankaj Purohit, J. In this appeal preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), the State has challenged the acquittal of respondents-accused under Section 452, 308/34 of IPC, which was passed by learned Sessions Judge/1st FTC, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No 131 of 1997 on 24.06.2008. 2. Facts of the prosecution story, as narrated in the noncognizable report (NCR) are that the informant Chote Lal lodged the NCR at Police Station Ranipur against the respondents-accused persons with the averments that on 10.03.1986, his sister Kela had gone in the jungle to cut the grass. The respondents-accused persons abused the sister of informant on the issue of cutting grass and when his sister informed about this fact to the informant, he (informant) also went on the spot, where, respondents-accused persons assaulted him with batons and sticks due to which he sustained injuries. During investigation, the Investigation Officer began to investigate the NCR and after inquiry, he converted the NCR into the Crime Number, added section 452 IPC, and on the basis of inquiry report of injured persons, also added Section 308 IPC. Investigation of this matter was entrusted to PW12 SHO J.P.Juyal, who during the course of investigation, recorded statement of the witness, prepared the site map and on culmination of investigation, submitted a charge-sheet Ex.Ka-11 against the respondents-accused persons under Section 452, 308/34 of IPC in the Court. The injured persons were also medically examined by PW4 Dr.Pradeep Kumar in Government Hospital, Haridwar. 3. The charge was framed against the respondents-accused persons under Sections 452, 308/34 of IPC by the Court of learned Sessions Judge/1st FTC, Haridwar, which the respondents-accused persons denied and they claimed trial. 4. The prosecution produced certain documents in documentary evidence and also produced as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, the statements of respondents-accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The respondents-accused persons in their statements stated the case to be false, but, did not adduce any defence evidence. The trial Court on the basis of evidence led during the course of the trial, reached to the conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the respondents-accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt, and accordingly, it proceeded to acquit the respondents-accused as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. The trial Court on the basis of evidence led during the course of the trial, reached to the conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the respondents-accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt, and accordingly, it proceeded to acquit the respondents-accused as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. Challenging the judgment of acquittal, the present appeal has been preferred by the State. 5. In this matter, PW1 Kirpa stated that on the date of incident, his daughter had gone in the field to cut the grass, where one Ruhde caught the hands of his daughter. However, his daughter came back home. He has stated that thereafter all the four respondents respondents-accused came to his house armed with batons and sticks and assaulted his wife Rampyari, sons Malkhan and Chote Lal as well as wife of Chote Lal named Sumitra. He got injuries in the incident. He cannot say about the weapon used by respective respondents-accused persons. 6. PW2 Malkhan also narrated the same facts as stated by PW1 Kirpa. He has stated that his sister was indecently behaved by one Ruhde in the field. Atar Singh and Chote Lal as well as Samay Singh went to the house of the respondents-accused to inquire as to why such act was done. There, the respondents-accused persons met, who threatened that the same would continue in future also. Subsequent to his arrival at the house, all the four respondents-accused armed with batons and sticks, came at his house and committed marpeet with his father and other persons in the house. 7. PW3 Som Dutt stated that on the date of incident at about 3 P.M., the respondents-accused entered the house of Chote Lal and assaulted Kirpa, Malkhan, Atar Singh, Rampyari and Sumitra. Thereafter, he alongwith his father Harmal and Meghraj besides some other persons also reached at the spot. 8. PW4 Dr.Pradeep Kumar is the medical officer who examined the injured persons on the date of incident and prepared the medical reports Ex. Ka-2, Ka-3 and Ka-7. 9. PW5 Atar Singh has fully corroborated the evidence of PW1 Kirpa, PW2 Malkhan and PW3 Som Dutt. The Court does not want to reiterate the same in order to avoid repeatedness. 10. PW6 Meghraj did not support the prosecution evidence and was declared hostile. 11. PW7 Chote Lal is the informant of the case. Ka-2, Ka-3 and Ka-7. 9. PW5 Atar Singh has fully corroborated the evidence of PW1 Kirpa, PW2 Malkhan and PW3 Som Dutt. The Court does not want to reiterate the same in order to avoid repeatedness. 10. PW6 Meghraj did not support the prosecution evidence and was declared hostile. 11. PW7 Chote Lal is the informant of the case. He has narrated the evidence, as made in the report lodged by him at Police Station Ranipur. 12. PW8 Rajendra, PW9 Chandra Kumar, PW10 Sumitra @ Sunita and PW11 Sumitra were all declared hostile by the prosecution, as they did not support the story of the case. 13. PW12 J.P.Juyal is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has proved about conducting investigation of the case and submission of charge sheet in the Court against the respondents-accused in the Court. 14. In this case, total ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PW7 Chote Lal though supported the prosecution story in his examination-in-chief, but, regarding the injuries caused to the respondents-accused, he has stated in cross-examination that he reached on the spot on hearing the news. He did not see any respondents-accused committing Maarpeet. PW8 Rajendra and PW9 Chandra Kumar did not support the prosecution story and were declared hostile. PW10 Sumitra @ Sunita and PW11 Sumitra also did not support the prosecution case even though, they were allegedly the injured witnesses. 15. Moreover, there are serious contradictions in the evidence of alleged eye-witnesses and injured witnesses. PW2 could not give any justification or reasonable ground as to why the report was lodged with delay of three days. No plausible explanation was given regarding the delay. PW4 Dr.Pradeep Kumar, who medically examined the injured witnesses, has stated that the injuries of all the injured were simple in nature. PW4 has also opined that the injuries of injured were not of such a nature which could result in death. 16. Further, the prosecution even failed to produce either the NCR or the FIR in the Court, nor could prove the delay in lodging the NCR. On the basis of all these anomalies and contradictions, the Trial Court proceeded to record the finding of acquittal of respondents-accused. 17. In my considered opinion, the Trial Court was perfectly justified in acquitting the respondents-accused. On the basis of all these anomalies and contradictions, the Trial Court proceeded to record the finding of acquittal of respondents-accused. 17. In my considered opinion, the Trial Court was perfectly justified in acquitting the respondents-accused. At this juncture, it would be apt to mention authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghurey Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2008(10) SCC 450 , wherein, it was propounded that while hearing the appeal against acquittal, the power of reviewing the evidence must be exercised with great care and caution, and in order to ensure that the innocents are not punished, the appellate court should attach due weight to the lower court's acquittal because the presumption of the innocence is further strengthened by the acquittal, and the appellate court should reverse an acquittal only when it has very substantial and compelling reasons. Paragraph No.3 of the said judgment is quoted herein under:- "3. We have endeavoured to set out the guidelines for the appellate courts in dealing with appeals against acquittal. An overriding theme emanates from the law on appeals against acquittals. The appellate court is given wide powers to review the evidence to come to its own conclusions. But this power must be exercised with great care and caution. In order to ensure that the innocents are not punished, the appellate court should attach due weight to the lower court's acquittal because the presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the acquittal. The appellate court should, therefore, reverse an acquittal only when it has " very substantial and compelling reasons". 18. In view of the reasons cited hereinabove, the Court does not find any ground to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment passed by the Trial Court. The appeal preferred by the State sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. 19. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the LCR be sent to the court concerned for information.