Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 567 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Rakesh

2024-08-27

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, RITU BAHRI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ritu Bahri, C.J. The State has come up in appeal against the judgment passed by the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 312/2007, Sessions Trial No. 313/2007 and Sessions Trial No. 328/2007 dated 13.11.2013, whereby the respondents herein, namely Rakesh, Arjun and Rajesh have been acquitted of the offences under Section 307 r/w Section 34 IPC, and the accused Rakesh has also been acquitted of the charge under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 2. A First Information Report, being FIR No. 230/2005 was registered on 05.09.2005. The complainant in the said FIR is Rajkumar. He had given a complaint that on 28.08.2005, his son Luv Kumar had left the BHEL at around 07:30 P.M. and had gone to Shivalik Nagar in order to get his mobile phone recharged. Along with him, his friend Pratipal (P.W.-8), son of Madhoram had also gone. They got their motorbike chain repaired in the shop of Rishipal near Chinmay Degree College, and thereafter left from there. When they were walking, then near Paltu Ram’s shop two boys came, one of whose name was Rakesh, S/o Amar Singh, and the name of other was not known, and they said that they have heard that you are news-reporter of India T.V., and your name is Luv Kumar. The son of the complainant told them that yes he is a news reporter and that his name is Luv Kumar. On this, Rakesh said that come with me, I will get you a special news tape, then the son of the complainant asked him where the news is, and where to go, then that boy Rakesh said that bribe was being taken in the nearby Lotus factory, and that he will get him a job in the factory. The factory was nearby, and Luv Kumar went there with Rakesh. At this stage, Rishipal (P.W.-3), the scooter mechanic, and Pratipal (P.W.-8), who was already with the complainant’s son, saw Luv Kumar leaving with the accused. When after some time, Luv Kumar took out his mobile phone and tried to make a call, one of the boys took out a knife and attacked him, and the same boys put a noose around his neck and threw him down, and left him there in the bushes thinking he was dead. 3. When after some time, Luv Kumar took out his mobile phone and tried to make a call, one of the boys took out a knife and attacked him, and the same boys put a noose around his neck and threw him down, and left him there in the bushes thinking he was dead. 3. Further, the complainant states that the next day i.e. on 29.08.2005, the general public and SIDCUL office employees took out his son in an unconscious state from two big pipes under the drain culvert in front of the SIDCUL office near Roshanabad Road Gol Chak. He was sent for treatment to the main hospital of BHEL, and, in this backdrop Luv Kumar gave details of this incident, and the complainant lodged the FIR in the Police Station. 4. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Rakesh, Arjun and Rajesh under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, and separate charge-sheet was also filed against Rakesh under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The accused denied the charges, and, in this backdrop, the trial proceeded. The following witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case : P.W.-1 Chutail Luv Kumar. P.W.-2 Pitmo Devi. P.W.-3 Rishipal. P.W.-4 Mehkal. P.W.-5 Sub Inspector Virendra Singh Negi. P.W.-6 Constable 335 Vinod Kumar. P.W.-7 Dr. Akhilesh Agrawal. P.W.-8 Pratipal. P.W.-9 Retired Inspector Vijay Kumar. P.W.-10 Constable 699 Shanti Prasad Chamoli. P.W.-11 Sub Inspector Sunil Rawat. 5. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court, after going through the entire evidence has acquitted the accused on the following grounds : (i) In paragraph no. 37 of the impugned judgment, it has been observed that there was a delay of more than 08 days in reporting the incident, and the victim had already been taken to the hospital for treatment on 29.08.2005. (ii) The medical examination of the victim’s injuries was done on 05.09.2005, and there was no evidence of the treatment given to the victim in BHEL hospital and AIIMS, Delhi hospital. As per the medical examination report dated 05.09.2005, and the statement of the doctor, there was no evidence of any injury on the victim’s body, which was caused by a knife like weapon. However, as per the prosecution case, there was a knife attack, and there was an injury on the victim's body. As per the medical examination report dated 05.09.2005, and the statement of the doctor, there was no evidence of any injury on the victim’s body, which was caused by a knife like weapon. However, as per the prosecution case, there was a knife attack, and there was an injury on the victim's body. (iii) No steps were taken by the prosecution to get the accused identified by the victim-Luv Kumar. The name of Rakesh was given by one Palturam, who was the shopkeeper, and Palturam has also not been examined. (iv) There is no specific statement given by the victim about the role and identity of the accused in his statement. (v) The fact of recovery of clutch-wire at the behest of the accused Rakesh, and recovery of a knife from his possession is also doubtful. Even the confession by the accused Rakesh and Arjun is neither supported, nor proved beyond any doubt by any independent evidence. Hence, this confession is not admissible as per the Indian Evidence Act. (vi) The statements given by witnesses Pratipal (P.W.-8) and Rishipal (P.W.-3), causes suspicion of involvement of the accused in the incident. 6. Hence, on the basis of the above-said grounds the offence under Section 307 - that there was an intention to murder Luv Kumar was not made out, and the accused have been acquitted. The prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of a notified and banned weapon like knife from accused-Rakesh. 7. The most important evidence, with regard to the injuries on Luv Kumar, was the medical examination report. P.W.-7 is Dr. Akhilesh Agrawal, who conducted the medical examination of the victim on 05.09.2005. He has stated in his cross-examination that from the size of the injuries suffered by the victim, it appears that these injuries were not caused by sticks and rods, and in this backdrop the medical evidence does not support that the injuries were caused by the knife, and there was no explanation by the prosecution, as to who had caused injuries on the left hand of the victim. 8. 8. The trial Court further examined that the victim was taken for treatment on 29.08.2005 itself, and no medical report of 29.08.2005 has been made part of the evidence produced by the prosecution, and the report dated 05.09.2005, which was attached with the charge-sheet and the statement given by P.W.-7, does not support the prosecution story. In this backdrop, the only medical evidence, which was led, was also reportedly discarded by the trial Court. 9. The other aspect examined by the trial Court is, with respect to the recovery of knife (Ex.Ka.-1), and this was never sent for FSL, and as per the prosecution, it was having blood on it. Since there was no direct evidence, the prosecution has failed to lead the evidence that this weapon was used at the time of crime. Lack of leading correct evidence with respect to the medical examination report Ex.Ka.-7, and the recovery memo Ex.Ka.-1 of the knife was made the ground to acquit the accused. 10. Counsel for the State has not been able to refer to any other evidence, which the trial Court has not examined and has not taken into consideration, while returning the finding of acquittal. 11. In this backdrop, the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court does not require any interference. The present Government Appeals are meritless, and are, hereby, dismissed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.