Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 43 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Ram Sukh

2024-01-09

PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2024
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) This appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), as directed against the judgment and order dated 15.07.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ist F.T.C., Haridwar in Sessions Trial Nos. 325 of 2007 and 326 of 2007, whereby the said court, at the end of the trial, has acquitted the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 308 IPC and 25/4 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. In order to resolve the controversy the facts in a nutshell, as narrated in the FIR are that PW1-Navneet Roshan, who is the informant lodged an FIR with Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar with the averments that he is posted as a Driver in Nagar Palika, Haridwar. On 16.06.2007 at about 09:45 A.M., taking the vehicle (Minidor), he along with other employees were engaged in doing the sweeping work near the electric house and the sweepers, PW3-Bobi along with PW2-Net Ram were lifting garbage, meanwhile, the accused-respondent came and caught hold of PW3-Bobi. When PW3-Bobi tried to save himself, the accused gave a blow of knife on his head, due to which he sustained serious injuries and he was taken to Ramakrishna Mission Sevashrama Hospital. 3. On the basis of this report, an FIR was registered and an entry was made in the G.D. The investigation was entrusted to PW8-S.I. Y.K. Sharma, who recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared the site plan (Ex.Ka-7) and on completion of investigation submitted a charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-8) in the court. During investigation, a knife was recovered from possession of the accused, on the basis of which a case under Section 25/4 of the Arms Act, 1959 was registered. The investigation whereof was done by PW10-S.I. J.S. Negi, who during investigation also recorded the statement of the witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-14), in the court on completion of investigation. After committal, both 325 of 2007 and 326 of 2007 consolidated and decided together by the impugned judgment and order. 4. The charges were thereafter framed against the accused-respondent under Section 308 IPC and under Section 25/4 of the Arms Act, 1959 by the court on 14.09.2007, the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced as many as ten witnesses viz. 4. The charges were thereafter framed against the accused-respondent under Section 308 IPC and under Section 25/4 of the Arms Act, 1959 by the court on 14.09.2007, the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced as many as ten witnesses viz. PW1-Navneet Roshan, PW2-Net Ram, PW3-Bobi (injured witness), PW4-Constable Pradeep Negi, PW5-Constable Vimal, PW6-Dr. K.P. Mittal, PW7-Rajbeer, PW8-S.I. Y.K. Sharma, PW9-S.I. Devendra Kumar and PW10-S.I. J.S. Negi. 6. On completion of prosecution evidence statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The accused stated the case to have been proceeded falsely against him and also denied recovery of knife from him, but no evidence was adduced in his defence. On culmination of trial, the accused-respondent was acquitted by the trial court vide impugned judgment as mentioned in paragraph no.1, of this judgment. 7. In this matter, as many as 12 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, out of which PW1 to PW3 are stated to be witnesses who have given the eye-witness account on the occurrence. PW6-Dr. K.P. Mittal is the Medical Officer, who provided medical aid to the injured, PW3-Bobi, PW7-Rajbeer is the person before whom the Investigating Officer received the blood stained articles relating to PW1-Navneet Roshan and sealed the same. Other witnesses are the Police employees who took part in the investigation of the matter. 8. PW1-Navneet Roshan in his chief has reiterated version of the FIR. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not see that while catching hold, hands of accused-Ram Sukh were empty or not. He did not save Bobi. From the evidence of this witness, it appears that he did not see any weapon in the hands of the accused. He has merely stated that when he saw the accused had caught hold of PW3-Bobi, both were shouting and he saw back only on hearing the noise because his back was towards them. 9. There is contradiction in the statement of this witness, as compared to PW3-Bobi. Since PW1-Navneet Roshan has stated in his cross-examination that injured PW3-Bobi had not fallen at that time rather the people made him sit by giving him support whereas, injured PW3-Bobi states in his cross-examination that he had ran away from the spot. He did not go to the police station after running. Since PW1-Navneet Roshan has stated in his cross-examination that injured PW3-Bobi had not fallen at that time rather the people made him sit by giving him support whereas, injured PW3-Bobi states in his cross-examination that he had ran away from the spot. He did not go to the police station after running. PW1-Navneet Roshan has also stated in his cross-examination that the name of the accused was told to him by the Police and he did not know him before. 10. From perusal of the aforesaid facts, it appears that even before giving report by PW1-Navneet Roshan at police station, the Police had reached at the spot and Police after making interrogation got the name of the accused known and then the name of the accused was told to PW1-Navneet Roshan. 11. PW2-Net Ram although in his chief examination has supported the prosecution story, but in cross-examination he has stated that at the time of occurrence, he and PW3-Bobi were standing on different directions and he was not able to see any occurrence. From this evidence given by PW2-Net Ram, there is no ground to make any further discussion about his evidence. 12. PW3-Bobi in his chief examination has fully supported the prosecution story about being attacked by the accused with a knife. PW3-Bobi did not say this fact in chief examination that accused caught hold of him. There appears to be gross contradiction in the evidence of PW1-Navneet Roshan and PW3-Bobi. 13. It appears from evidence of PW1-Navneet Roshan that PW3-Bobi sustained injuries even before he was caught hold off by the accused, but PW3-Bobi stated that a blow of knife was not given to him before catching hold. 14. PW8-S.I. Y.K. Sharma is the Police Officer, who conducted investigation of the case under Section 25/4 of the Arms Act, 1959. 15. The court below has doubted the evidence of this witness on the ground that he did not record the statement of the accused about recovery of knife by him. 16. PW6-Dr. K.P. Mittal has stated in his evidence that only one injury was sustained by injured PW3-Bobi measuring 3x0.5 cm. muscle deep. 17. The court below in this regard has rightly held that had there been intention of the accused to kill the injured PW3-Bobi, he would not have given only a single blow of knife. 18. 16. PW6-Dr. K.P. Mittal has stated in his evidence that only one injury was sustained by injured PW3-Bobi measuring 3x0.5 cm. muscle deep. 17. The court below in this regard has rightly held that had there been intention of the accused to kill the injured PW3-Bobi, he would not have given only a single blow of knife. 18. From this fact, I am of the view that the trial court was perfectly justified in recording the finding of acquittal. 19. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The respondent has 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. 20. 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” reported in (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. 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”. 21. 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”. 21. 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. 22. The appeals are bereft of merit and the same are accordingly dismissed. 23. Let the L.C.R. be immediately sent back to the trial court for consignment.