Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 195 (UTT)

Gyan Giri v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-03-14

PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2024
JUDGMENT : Pankaj Purohit, J. The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), challenging the judgment and order dated 17.10.2007, passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.350 of 2001, whereby the trial court at the end of trial convicted the appellants under Section 148 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half year. The appellants were further convicted under Section 324 IPC and were sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment. The appellants were further convicted under Section 325 IPC and sentenced them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, with default stipulation of three months additional imprisonment. All the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. During pendency of the appeal, appellant no.1-Gyan Giri passed away and accordingly the appeal stood abated against him by order dated 03.08.2023 passed by this Court. 3. In a nutshell, case of the prosecution is that PW1-Shyam Giri gave a report at Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar with the averments that in the morning of the said day at about 10:15 his neighbors/accused-Gyan Giri was closing his jangla. When the informant inquired the reason of closing jangla, accused-Gyan Giri began hurling abuses. When the informant checked him to do so and asked to lodge a report against him in the police station, the accused persons namely, Gyan Giri and Ramesh Giri armed with country-made pistols, accused-appellants:-Naresh Giri and Dinesh Giri having tabals and accused/appellant-Mahesh Giri holding an iron rod in his hand came on the spot and committed maarpeet with father of the informant PW2-Jaswant Giri, PW4-Mani Ram (uncle), PW5-Madan Giri, Suraj Giri and informant with their respective weapons, due to which the informant sustained severe injuries. Mukesh Chauhan and PW3-Vijendra Kumar and several other people of the village reached at the spot, who witnessed the incident and saved the informant and a case was registered against the accused persons. Injured persons were thereafter medically examined. After completing investigation Police filed charge-sheet against the appellants and Late Gyan Giri. Subsequently, the case was committed to Sessions Court for trial. On 09.11.2001 charges against the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 506 and 507 IPC was framed which accused persons denied and claimed to be tried. 4. Injured persons were thereafter medically examined. After completing investigation Police filed charge-sheet against the appellants and Late Gyan Giri. Subsequently, the case was committed to Sessions Court for trial. On 09.11.2001 charges against the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 506 and 507 IPC was framed which accused persons denied and claimed to be tried. 4. As many as nine witnesses were examined namely, PW1-Shyam Giri, PW2-Jaswant Giri, PW3-Vijendra Kumar, PW4-Mani Ram, PW5-Madan Giri, PW6-Dr. O.P. Sharma, PW7-Const. Baru Singh, PW8-S.I. S.L. Azad, PW9-Dr. R.K. Pandey. 5. Thereafter the statement of accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, in which they have stated the case to be false and further stated that people from informant side had come to their house and committed maarpeet and in their defence they lodged a false report against them. However no defence evidence was produced by appellants, in support of their case. The trial court at the end of trial has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para no.1 of the judgment, hence this appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the entire material available on record. 7. PW1-Shyam Giri is the informant of the case, he has reiterated version of the FIR. According to him, on 04.10.2000 at 10:15 A.M. his uncle-Gyaan Giri, by constructing a wall, was closing his jangla when father of the informant asked the reason for the same, the accused persons hurled filthy abuses and when stated by him that he would lodge a report at police station, on this the accused persons became annoyed and thereafter the accused holding country-made pistols, tabals and iron rod came on the spot and caused injuries to the informant, his father and uncle. This incident was witnessed by Mukesh Chauhan, PW3-Vijendra Kumar and several other people, who saved the informant and his father from clutches of the accused PW4-Mani Ram and PW5-Madan Giri. 8. PW2-Jaswant Giri, PW4-Mani Ram and PW5-Madan Giri completely reiterated version of the FIR and have corroborated evidence of PW1-Shyam Giri, PW3-Vijendra Kumar although stated to be eye-witness, did not support story of the prosecution and turned hostile. 9. PW6- O.P. Sharma has medically examined the injuries sustained by the accused persons. 10. In the opinion of Medical Officer, the injuries had been caused by sharp edged as well as blunt weapons. 11. PW7-Const. 9. PW6- O.P. Sharma has medically examined the injuries sustained by the accused persons. 10. In the opinion of Medical Officer, the injuries had been caused by sharp edged as well as blunt weapons. 11. PW7-Const. Baru Singh is a formal witness. 12. PW8-S.I. S.L. Azad is the Investigating Officer of the case. 13. PW9-Dr. R.K. Pandey is Radiologist of District Hospital, Haridwar, who has proved about submission of x-ray report of the injured (Ex. Ka-16 and Ka-17). According to him, fracture of metacarpal bone was found on person of the injured-Madan Giri. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC. No evidence was adduced by the accused in their defense. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons, beyond all reasonable doubt, and the trial court has erred in law in recording the findings of conviction against the accused. 15. On the other hand, learned State counsel fully supported the judgment passed by the trial court. 16. In this matter, PW1-Shyam Giri, PW2-Jaswant Giri, PW4-Mani Ram and PW5-Madan Giri are the witnesses who have given eye witness account of the occurrence. PW1-Shyam Giri has clearly stated in his evidence that on the date of incident the accused persons were armed with country-made pistol and tabals. Not only this, these witnesses are also the injured witnesses. There is clear unanimity in evidence of these witnesses, who have unambiguously stated that the occurrence of maarpeet took place at a common place. 17. Although a lengthy cross-examination was made by the defence, of witnesses. From these witnesses however nothing could come out so as to cast any doubt on the testimony of these injured eye-witnesses. Medical evidence given by PW6-Dr. O.P. Sharma as also the supplementary report given by PW9-Dr. R.K. Pandey also fully corroborates story of the prosecution. 18. On the basis of evidence of aforesaid injured witnesses which have been discussed by the trial court in detail, gist whereof has also been noted by this Court in preceding paragraph of this judgment, the Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court was fully justified in recording the findings of conviction of the accused persons. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any ground on which the evidence of any of the eye-witnesses can be discarded. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any ground on which the evidence of any of the eye-witnesses can be discarded. In the opinion of this Court, judgment passed by the trial court is sound and based on cogent evidence and there is hardly any ground for interference. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal preferred by the appellants is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. 21. Accordingly, the judgment and order passed by the trial court which is under challenge is affirmed. The appellants are on bail. Let they be taken into custody on surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence as imposed against them by the trial court. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. 22. Let Trial Court Record be sent back to trial court to do the needful and necessary compliance.