Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 263 (UTT)

State of Uttaranchal v. Jagdish

2024-04-18

PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2024
JUDGMENT : Pankaj Purohit, J. This appeal, preferred by the State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed against the judgment and order dated 08.10.2002, passed by the 2nd F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Session Trial No.448 of 1999 State Vs. Jagdish and Others, whereby, the said Court at the end of trial, has acquitted the respondents-accused for the offence under Sections 452, 323/34, 504, 506 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed by PW1 informant (Bhopal) against the accused persons with the averments that on 21.01.1997 at 10:00 A.M., accused persons entered the house of informant and began to beat him. Accused-Jagdish giving threat to kill the informant, used caste indicative words against the informant. On hearing the noise raised by the informant, people from village namely Manjura, Suleman and several other persons came and could rescue the informant from the clutches of the accused persons. The accused persons while leaving gave a threat that they would kill him, in case he makes a complaint of this incident at the police station and also insulted the informant by using caste indicative words. The informant, thereafter, got himself medically examined on 22.01.1997 and brought the same at the police station. But, no action was taken on the same. 3. Since, no action was taken on his complaint, he preferred the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Court. On which, by order dated 31.01.1997, the Court called for a report from the concerned SHO and by order dated 04.02.1997, directed the SHO Police Station Pathri to investigate the matter and to submit the report in the Court. 4. The report was accordingly registered. The matter was investigated. The Investigating Officer conducted investigation and submitted the charge-sheet in the Court against the respondents-accused persons. 5. On 03.08.2000, learned 2nd Additional District Judge framed the charges against the accused persons under Sections 452, 323/34, 504, 506 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, which they denied and claimed to be tried. 6. As many as 4 witnesses namely PW1 Bhopal (informant), PW2 Suleman, PW3 Manjur Hasan and PW4 Dr. 5. On 03.08.2000, learned 2nd Additional District Judge framed the charges against the accused persons under Sections 452, 323/34, 504, 506 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, which they denied and claimed to be tried. 6. As many as 4 witnesses namely PW1 Bhopal (informant), PW2 Suleman, PW3 Manjur Hasan and PW4 Dr. Chiranjilal were examined on behalf of prosecution to prove its case. 7. Thereafter, the statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused persons did not utter anything and stated that the case of the prosecution is false and it was also stated that the case proceeded due to enmity. No evidence in defense was produced. 8. The trial court at the end of trial has acquitted the respondents-accused as narrated in Para No.1 of this judgment, hence this appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence available on record. First and foremost, it needs to be mentioned that the occurrence is stated to be of 21.01.1997 at 10:00 am, whereas, the injured-Bhopal got medical examination of his injuries at District Hospital Haridwar on 22.01.1997. PW4 Dr. Chiranjilal has proved the medical report (Ext.Ka-2). According to PW4, he medically examined the injuries on the person of injured on 22.01.1997 at 12:40 noon and found two injuries. No plausible explanation was given for such a long delay in conducting the medical examination. 10. The trial court noticed the contradiction in the statement of informant regarding giving the application to the Superintendent of Police. According to him, he had sent the application through registered post; however, the trial court noticed that no receipt of registry was available on record. According to the own case of informant, he came to the Court after 10 days of occurrence and gave the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which proves that no report was given by the informant and the application given by him under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Ext.Ka-1) was also given with delay, for which, no plausible explanation was given. 11. The trial court noticed that according to the case of the informant, he was assaulted for two minutes with batons and sticks and the accused persons gave him 4 to 5 assaults. However, as per the medical report, only 02 contusions were found on the person of injured. 11. The trial court noticed that according to the case of the informant, he was assaulted for two minutes with batons and sticks and the accused persons gave him 4 to 5 assaults. However, as per the medical report, only 02 contusions were found on the person of injured. If 04 persons would assault a person for two minutes by using the batons and sticks, then sustaining only 02 contusions by the injured makes the entire story doubtful. 12. The trial court also noticed the contradiction in the evidence of PW2 Suleman and PW3 Manjur Hasan. PW3 Manjur Hasan regarding the injuries of the injured has stated that he has sustained internal injuries, whereas, PW2 Suleman has deposed that blood was oozing out from the injuries of the injured Bhopal. This evidence given by PW2 and PW3 is also not proved by the medical evidence. 13. The trial Court reached to the conclusion that the evidence led by PW2 and PW3 is not such which can be construed as fully reliable. The presence of PW2 was doubted by the trial court from his own admission that he was told by one-Jairam and Sukhbir that accused persons has committed maarpeet with injured-informant. This fact proved that actually at the time of occurrence, PW2 Suleman was not present on the spot. PW3 also stated that when he reached on the spot, by then injured has sustained internal injuries and on the spot, except him and Suleman, none else was present. This also proves that no incident of assault was seen by this witness and by the time, he reached on the spot, other people had left and only he and Bhopal were left at the spot. Hence, the deposition of PW2 and PW3 regarding the commission of maarpeet to the injured cannot be held to be reliable. 14. There is also contradiction about the place of commission of occurrence. Injured-informant in his application (Ext.Ka-1) stated that the accused persons entered his house and committed maarpeet, whereas, PW2 has stated in his statement that in front of house of informant i.e. place of occurrence, he has gone to his village, whereas, PW3 Manjur Hasan has stated the place of occurrence to be a trisection this way. Injured-informant in his application (Ext.Ka-1) stated that the accused persons entered his house and committed maarpeet, whereas, PW2 has stated in his statement that in front of house of informant i.e. place of occurrence, he has gone to his village, whereas, PW3 Manjur Hasan has stated the place of occurrence to be a trisection this way. The place of occurrence as deposed by the injured in his statement and that of statement of witnesses is separate from that of application moved by PW1- informant. 15. Lastly, it is the case of prosecution that the accused persons publically used caste indicative words and insulted him. Since, the incident of assault itself could not be proved by the prosecution to the hilt, usage of such caste indicative words, itself becomes doubtful. There is no other evidence available on record to prove that which insulting words were used by the accused persons, which caused the uproar. 16. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, the trial court reached to the conclusion that the prosecution itself failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 17. In my considered opinion, I find no ground to interfere with the elaborate judgment and order passed by the learned trial court. The appeal preferred by the State is bereft of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 18. Registry is directed to transmit the LCR along with a certified copy of this judgment to the trial court concerned for doing the needful. 19. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.