Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 532 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Amarpal @ Fauji

2024-08-07

PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2024
JUDGMENT (Pankaj Purohit, J.) Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The State has filed this government appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.03.2007 passed by Learned III F.T.C/Additional Sessions Judge, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 09 of 1998 (State vs. Amarpal @ Fauji), whereby, the respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 452 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC). 3. The facts of the case in brief are that on 26/3/1988 at 10:05 AM, the complainant submitted a written report to the police station Kotwali, Nagar Haridwar with the contents that today at about 5:00 AM, some unknown persons entered into the ashram named Nirvaan Hardwar Udaasin Ashram by jumping the boundary all of the aforesaid ashram and committed with beatings with Baba Bhagwat Das, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries; and had been admitted in Bengali Hospital, Kankhal. On the basis of above information, the case was registered as case crime no. 169/1988 on 26/03/1988 at police station Kotwali, District Haridwar under Sections 452 and 323 IPC. 4. The investigation officer conducted investigation of the case, recorded the statement of the witnesses and after inspecting the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan, inquest and on completion of investigation submitted a charge sheet under Sections 323, 307 and 452 IPC. The cognizance was taken against the accused/respondent and the case was committed to Learned Additional Sessions Judge for trial. 5. The charges were framed on 28/04/1998 against the accused/respondent under Sections 307 and 452 IPC, which he denied and claimed to be tried. 6. As many as six witnesses were produced by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused. They are PW-1 Acharya Jagdish Muni, PW-2 Swami Satswaroop Shastri, PW-3 Shantanand, PW-4 Dr. Ravindra Ramchandra Sonteki, PW-5 H.C.P. Karan Singh, PW-6 S.I. R.P. Chaudhary (Investigating Officer of the case) and documentary evidence was exhibited by the prosecution witnesses. 7. Thereafter, the statement of accused/respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, the accused/respondent stated the prosecution case to be false and stated that he was innocent but did not give any evidence in defence. 8. The trial court on conclusion of trial found that the prosecution could not prove the case against the accused/respondent beyond all reasonable doubt and it accordingly proceeded to acquit the accused/respondent as mentioned in Para 1 of this judgment. 8. The trial court on conclusion of trial found that the prosecution could not prove the case against the accused/respondent beyond all reasonable doubt and it accordingly proceeded to acquit the accused/respondent as mentioned in Para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this government appeal. Leave was already granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 12.06.2007. 9. PW-1 Acharya Jagdish Muni, who was the complainant of the case did not support the prosecution story and stated that he wrote the FIR on the basis of hearsay. He even denied giving any statement to the police and regarding his statements under 161 Cr.P.C., stated that he does not know how was it written. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. 10. PW-2 Swami Satswaroop Shastri on oath stated that on 26.03.1988 at around 5:00 AM, he returned to the ashram after taking holy bath in river Ganges. He deposed that he himself saw the accused person beating the victim. Seeing him, the accused/respondent ran away. He further deposed that he along with some other persons took the victim to the hospital. 11. PW-3 Shantanand was also declared hostile. 12. PW-4 Dr. Ravindra Ramchandra Sonteki on oath stated that he examined the victim when he was brought to the hospital in an injured state on 26.03.1988 at around 7:50 AM. He stated that there were three injury marks on the victim’s head, which could have been caused by a hard object. He further opined that the injury marks could also be caused as a result of falling. 13. PW-5 Head Constable Karan Singh on oath stated that he was the one who wrote the FIR and further identified his handwriting and signature in the FIR. 14. PW-6 Investigating Officer S.I. R.P. Chaudhary on oath stated that on receiving the information he went to the place of incident but could not find anyone over there. Hereafter, he went to the hospital where the victim told him that Amarpal and Ashok caused him injuries by beating him with an iron rod. 15. The trial court after appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused/respondent as the complainant did not support the case of the prosecution and further stated that he registered an FIR against unknown persons. He also denied the fact that he saw the accused/respondent beating the victim. 15. The trial court after appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused/respondent as the complainant did not support the case of the prosecution and further stated that he registered an FIR against unknown persons. He also denied the fact that he saw the accused/respondent beating the victim. The statements of other prosecution witness appear contradictory as to the fact that some of them themselves saw the accused/respondent beating the victim as none of the eye witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and on oath stated that they had only heard that the victim was beaten up by the accused/respondent. The prosecution also failed to supply x-ray copies of the fracture and did not even examine the doctor conducting the x-ray. On top of this, the doctor examined by the prosecution opined that the injuries could have been caused by a fall. 16. Accordingly, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused/respondent beyond all reasonable doubt and it accordingly acquitted the accused. 17. 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 reinforced by his acquittal. Unless and until there is perversity in the judgment of acquittal, the same should not be interfered with. 18. 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. 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”. 19. 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. 20. The appeal is bereft of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 21. Let the LCR be immediately sent back to the trial court for consignment.