Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Others" on 7 June, 2023
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
07th JUNE, 2023
GOVERNMENT APPEAL NO.546 OF 2007
Between:
State of Uttarakhand .....Appellant
And
Ram Singh Alias Dabbu and two Others ................Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. S.S. Adhikari,
Deputy Advocate
General assisted by Mr.
B.S. Thind, Brief
Holder for the State.
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Raman Kumar Shah,
Advocate.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
The present Government Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.07.2004, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Lansdowne, Garhwal in Criminal Case No.348 of 2003, "State vs. Ram Singh Alias Dabbu and two Others", by which, the respondents - accused persons have been acquitted of the charge under Section 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC').
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence on record that on 11.04.2003 at around 01:30 p.m., respondents - accused 2 persons reached village Bangarh along with Dara Singh and Upendra. They told that Ram Pal, Anoop, Surendra and Heera had stolen 50 cases of liquor from the hotel of the respondent - accused Ram Singh Alias Dabbu. On opposing that, Shiv Singh and Bhim Singh were beaten by them by showing the pistol on their head. They searched the houses and threatened the women of the village. Buddhi Singh (PW1), Ram Pal (PW2) and Janki Devi (PW3) went to the hotel of respondent - accused Ram Singh on 12.04.2003. On reaching the hotel of the respondent - accused Ram Singh alias Dabbu on 12.04.2003, accused Ram Singh, Sohan Singh and Ranveer Singh were asked why they had misbehaved with the women and children of their village. On this, they threatened them by showing pistol. Accused Ram Singh and accused Ranveer Singh were apprehended on the spot, while accused Sohan Singh managed to escape. The pistol was taken from Ram Singh's hand. 93 cases of English liquor were recovered from the room of the accused Ram Singh Alias Dabbu. At that time, Gabar Singh (PW6) was also present on the spot.
3. On 13.04.2003 at 11:00 a.m., an FIR was registered on the basis of a written report (Ext. Ka.1) of the informant Ram Pal (PW2). Charge-sheet was filed after completion of the investigation by the Revenue Police.
4. The accused persons were charged under Section 323, Section 504 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 3 1860 that they had caused bodily injury to Shiv Singh and Bhim Singh on 11.04.2003 at 1:30 p.m. and on 12.04.2003 at 10 a.m. they had insulted Ram Pal and villagers and threatened to kill them. Accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution, in order to establish the charges, examined seven witnesses.
6. Statements of the respondents - accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution.
7. Respondents - accused persons did not adduce any defence evidence.
8. Learned Trial Court heard the arguments, appreciated the evidence and held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
9. Heard Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. He submitted that the prosecution has examined seven witnesses and all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Accused persons have denied the prosecution case under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, however, they did not adduce any evidence in their defence. Learned Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence, produced by the 4 prosecution. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal is not justified.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Raman Kumar Shah, learned counsel for the respondents, has supported the impugned judgment.
11. I heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully assessed the evidence, adduced by the prosecution.
12. Prosecution's witness Buddhi Singh (PW1) has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 11.04.2003, at the time of incident, he had gone for labouring.
13. Informant Ram Pal (PW2) deposed in his examination-in-chief that villagers had informed him about the incident dated 11.04.2003.
14. Janki Devi (PW3) has stated in her cross- examination that she was not present in the village at the time of the incident dated 11.04.2003. She had gone to the forest to cut the grass.
15. Therefore, these three witnesses are not eye witness of the alleged incident dated 11.04.2003.
16. Chhuma Devi (PW4) has stated in her examination-in-chief that only accused persons had come on the day of the incident, while according to the First Information Report, the accused persons had reached Bangarh village along with Dara Singh and Upendra. 5 Chhuma Devi (PW4) has not given such evidence that Bhim Singh was beaten by the accused persons.
17. Dara Singh (PW7) has stated that on 11.04.2003, he went to village Bangarh along with his companion to give money to his uncle. He noticed that the accused persons were abusing the villagers and assaulting Bhim Singh and Shiv Singh, whereas, as per the FIR, the accused persons had reached village Bangarh along with Dara Singh (PW7) and Upendra.
18. Therefore, in the said circumstances, the evidence of Chhuma Devi (PW4) and Dara Singh (PW7) are not reliable.
19. According to the prosecution, Bhim Singh and Shiv Singh were beaten by the accused persons, but, the prosecution neither examined them nor mentioned any reason for not examining them. Under the said circumstances, it appears that if Bhim Singh and Shiv Singh had been examined by the prosecution, their evidence would not have supported the prosecution's case.
20. According to the case of the prosecution, Buddhi Singh (PW1), Ram Pal (PW2) and Janki Devi (PW3) went to the hotel of respondent - accused Ram Singh on 12.04.2003, where the accused persons threatened them by showing pistol and that pistol was recovered from the possession of the accused Ram Singh. At that time Gabar Singh (PW6) was also present on the spot. 6
21. Leela Ram (PW5), Patwari (Revenue Police) is the scriber of the First Information Report and the Investigating Officer of the case. According to this witness, he had obtained sanction by producing the recovered pistol before the District Magistrate, while according to Gabar Singh (PW6), the recovered pistol was broken.
22. Buddhi Singh (PW1) has stated in his cross- examination that accused Ram Singh and accused Ranveer Singh were tied to a tree with a rope. Ram Pal (PW2) has stated in his cross-examination that accused Ram Singh was tied to a tree with a rope. Janki Devi (PW3) has stated in her cross-examination that the accused Ram Singh was not tied to a tree but with a rope, while Gabar Singh (PW6) has stated that the accused Ram Singh was not tied to a tree.
23. In the present matter, there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution's witnesses. Therefore, the statements of the prosecution's witnesses do not inspire confidence.
24. The prosecution has to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the alleged offence was committed by the respondents- accused persons.
25. On a detailed examination of the evidence, produced by the prosecution, this Court upholds the view taken by learned Trial Court. In my considered view, the prosecution has failed to establish the commission of alleged 7 offence by the respondents - accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
26. As a result, the instant Government Appeal is liable to be dismissed; the same is dismissed accordingly.
__________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dated : 07th June, 2023 Pant/