Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 285 (UTT)

State of Uttaranchal v. Kamal Singh

2024-04-30

PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2024
JUDGMENT : PANKAJ PUROHIT, J. 1. In this appeal preferred by the State under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), judgment and order dated 25.03.2006, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 208 of 2004 State Vs. Kamal Singh and Others, is under challenge, whereby the said court, at the conclusion of trial, has acquitted the respondents-accused for the charge of offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC. 2. Facts in nutshell are that initially on 14.10.2004, a non-cognizable report (Ext. Ka-1) was given by PW1-Bakshi Chand Rana with police outpost Herbertpur, District Dehradun with the averments that on the last date, he along with his wife had gone to the house of his daughter and called for her. On some issue being argued in the house, his son-in-law and his brothers bent upon to commit maarpeet. His wife is a diabetic patient, who sustained injuries in his house. Thereafter, another report (Ext. Ka-2) was lodged by PW1-Bakshi Chand Rana with the same police outpost stating therein that his daughter-Renu was got married one and a half year ago with accused-Kamal Singh. There were some issues ongoing between them, on which, a compromise was entered between the parties and on 13.10.2004, it was promised that the bride would be permitted to meet her parents. However, since his daughter was not brought as per the promise, the informant along with his wife went at the in-laws house of his daughter at about 01:00 PM, where, all the 04 respondents-accused met them, surrounded them and begin to assault them with fists and kicks. The informant got the medical examination of his wife in Government Hospital, Vikasnagar and thereafter, on 14.10.2004 at about 01:00 AM, his wife succumbed to those injuries. 3. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons in the Court. 4. As many as 07 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. They are PW1 Bakshi Chand Rana (informant), PW2 Smt. Renu Kumar, PW3 Constable Keshwanand Joshi, PW4 Dr. Bharat Kishore, PW5 Rajesh Rana, PW6 S.I. B.D. Patiya and PW7 Investigating Officer. 5. Thereafter, the statements of accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded before the trial court. The accused persons took the plea of false implication. They are PW1 Bakshi Chand Rana (informant), PW2 Smt. Renu Kumar, PW3 Constable Keshwanand Joshi, PW4 Dr. Bharat Kishore, PW5 Rajesh Rana, PW6 S.I. B.D. Patiya and PW7 Investigating Officer. 5. Thereafter, the statements of accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded before the trial court. The accused persons took the plea of false implication. However, the trial court reached to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove its case to the hilt against the accused persons, and, accordingly, it acquitted respondents-accused persons as mentioned in Para No. 1 of this judgment. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the documents available on record. The trial court acquitted the respondents-accused persons by giving its elaborate and well discussed grounds, the substantial ones, whereof, are being provided herein-below: (a) In this matter, two reports were lodged by the informant. Firstly, the non-cognizable report i.e. Ext.Ka-1 and thereafter, subsequent first information report i.e. Ext.Ka-2. In the first report, the informant mentioned involvement of 02 persons in the maarpeet, whereas, in the subsequent report, the accused persons were stated to be 04 in numbers, who allegedly belaboured the deceased and also the informant. (b) The trial court reached to the conclusion that the second information given to the police could not be considered as the said FIR was stated to have been hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. (c) According to the prosecution case, the deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury caused by accused persons. However, PW4 Dr. Bharat Kishore produced on behalf of prosecution has clearly stated in his statement that the injury found on the back of head of deceased could not have been caused by kicks and fists. He also opined that this injury might have been caused due to fall also. PW4 further stated that in case of diabetic patient, if a person has taken high dose, then, in case of sugar level going down, the patient may feel giddiness, which may result into injury on her head on accidental fall. PW4 categorically ruled out that the injured might have sustained injury by kicks and fists. (d) PW2 Renu has stated that her mother sustained bleeding from mouth and she became unconscious after the incident. PW4 categorically ruled out that the injured might have sustained injury by kicks and fists. (d) PW2 Renu has stated that her mother sustained bleeding from mouth and she became unconscious after the incident. However, in the report of Ext.Ka-13, the Medical Officer has not mentioned that the deceased was unconscious at the time of examination. (e) The trial court also reached to the conclusion that the witnesses produced by the prosecution are interested witnesses and not independent witnesses. Keeping in view the aforesaid grounds, the trial court proceeded to acquit the respondents-accused. 7. Learned State Counsel could not argue any material ground so as to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial court. 8. From these facts, I am of the view that the trial court was perfectly justified in recording the finding of acquittal. 9. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The respondents have been acquitted. In appeal against acquittal it is held by Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments that the Courts should be slow in interfering in the judgments of acquittal as the innocence of the accused is further re-inforced by his acquittal. Unless and until there is perversity in the judgment of acquittal, the same should not be interfered with. 10. It is trite law that that while hearing the appeal against acquittal, the power of reviewing evidence 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 the innocence is further strengthened by the acquittal. The appellate court should reverse an acquittal only when it has “very substantial and compelling reasons”. I am fortified in my view by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ghurey Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 450 . For the sake of convenience, paragraph no. 3 of the said judgment is quoted below: “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. 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.” 11. For the aforesaid reasons and following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am also of the considered view that no ground for interference, at all, is made out in this matter, as there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment and order. 12. The appeal is bereft of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 13. Let the T.C.R. be immediately sent back to the trial court for consignment.