Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 234 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Jeevan Lal

2024-04-04

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, RITU BAHRI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ritu Bahri, C.J. There is no representation on behalf of the accused-respondents. Even on 28.08.2023, nobody has appeared for the accused-respondents. 2. The State has come up in this Government Appeal against the judgment dated 17.07.2015, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Almora, in Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2014, whereby, the accused-respondents have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.06.2014, the accused took away a person named Dhan Singh from his house in the morning on the pretext of going to Panuwanaula. Both the accused made Dhan Singh drink liquor and made him to file a report against some people, and as a part of a conspiracy, they caused the death of Dhan Singh. Accused Jeevan Lal, under the influence of alcohol, abused and threatened the first informer Prakash Singh and informed him about the death of Dhan Singh. In this regard, First Information Report (Ex.Ka-2) was given to Patwari Outpost Goradtalla, Tehsil Bhanoli, District Almora. On 25.06.2014, Prakash Singh, son of the deceased, gave an information (Ex.Ka.1) to Patwari Outpost Chosala, Tehsil Bhanoli, District Almora, with the intention that his father died while being taken to hospital. Therefore, necessary action be taken. 4. After investigation of the matter, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused-respondents under Sections 120B, 302, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused-respondents, as they pleaded not guilty. Following witnesses were examined by the Trial Court: P.W.-1 Prakash Singh (informant) P.W.-2 Smt. Ganguli Devi, wife of the deceased Dhan Singh. P.W.-3 Har Singh P.W.-4 Jagannath Prasad (Scribe) P.W.-5 Kunwar Singh P.W.-6 Rajendra Singh P.W.-7 Dr. Nagendra P.W.-8 Chandra Sekhar Kandpal (Investigating Officer) 5. The Trial Court, after going through the entire evidence led by the prosecution, acquitted the accused-respondents, as no offence was made out against the accused-respondents, as the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. 6. A perusal of the judgment shows that Prakash Singh (PW1), was the first informant, who had proved his signature on the FIR (Ext. Ka.2) and another report on his behalf (Ext Ka. 1). As per this witness, his father had left home at 6:30 a.m. in the morning. He had gone for Gurdabaanj. 6. A perusal of the judgment shows that Prakash Singh (PW1), was the first informant, who had proved his signature on the FIR (Ext. Ka.2) and another report on his behalf (Ext Ka. 1). As per this witness, his father had left home at 6:30 a.m. in the morning. He had gone for Gurdabaanj. He received a phone call from the accused Jeewan Lal that his father was not well. When he went to the hospital, his father had died. Prakash Singh (PW1) further stated that his father’s health had deteriorated, due to which, he died and the same was the evidence given by the wife of the deceased Dhan Singh, Smt. Ganguli Devi (PW2), who turned hostile. 7. Further PW4-Jagannath Prasad said that on 25.06.2014, the deceased and the accused had come to him for writing a complaint. This witness had told them that deceased Dhan Singh was not well, give him medicine. 8. As per the prosecution witness (PW7), Dr. Nagendra, who have done the post-mortem examination, the cause of death was not clear and viscera was preserved. The viscera report is at page no. 19 of the LCR, the same is extracted hereunder :- “Organophosphorous insecticide poison has been detected in exhibits-1, 2 and 3” 9. As per the report, Organophosphorous insecticide poison was detected in exhibits-1,2 and 3. 10. As per Sri Har Singh (PW3), on 25th June, 2014, when he was in his Dispensary at Garudabagh, on that day at 04:00 PM, deceased-Dhan Singh had come in intoxicated state. He was not in a position to walk. Seeing him in this condition, 108 was called and in the meantime, accused-Jeevan Lal reached there. In cross-examination, this witness stated that accused-Jeevan Lal had come to his shop, after deceased-Dhan Singh had come to his shop. 11. Another Prosecution Witness-Kunwar Singh (PW5) stated that when he reached to see deceased-Dhan Singh, the accused were sitting there and when asked, they said that the deceased-Dhan Singh had died in the Ambulance. This prosecution witness stated in the cross- examination that he did not see the accused with the deceased on the date of the incident. 12. As per the Viscera Report 10K/2 of the deceased, poison was found in his viscera and as per the Post Mortem Report Exhibit A-3, the contents of stomach had smell of alcohol. 13. This prosecution witness stated in the cross- examination that he did not see the accused with the deceased on the date of the incident. 12. As per the Viscera Report 10K/2 of the deceased, poison was found in his viscera and as per the Post Mortem Report Exhibit A-3, the contents of stomach had smell of alcohol. 13. Prakash Chandra (PW1), who is the son of deceased-Dhan Singh, further stated that his father used to drink alcohol excessively and he had died due to drinking poisonous liquor. 14. There is no evidence led by the prosecution to show that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. 15. In the absence of any last seen evidence of the deceased with the accused and the post mortem report that the contents of the stomach had smell of alcohol coupled with the evidence given by Prakash Chandra, son of deceased-Dhan Singh that his father was an alcoholic, the Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused as there was no evidence to connect the accused that they had given poison to the deceased. 16. In view of the above, the Government Appeal lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 17. Let the record of the case be sent back to the Trial Court.