Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand vs Rodhu on 10 September, 2018
Author: Lok Pal Singh
Bench: V.K. Bist, Lok Pal Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Government Appeal No. 98 of 2016
State of Uttarakhand. .......Appellant
Versus
Rodhu. .......Respondent
with
Government Appeal No. 99 of 2016
State of Uttarakhand. .......Appellant
Versus
Meghraj. .......Respondent
Mr. Amit Bhatt, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rawat, Brief Holder
for the State of Uttarakhand/appellant.
Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent.
Dated: September 10, 2018
Coram: Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J.
V.K. BIST, J.
These two Government Appeals being connected are being disposed of by common judgment.
2. These Government Appeals, preferred under Section 378 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are directed against the judgment & order dated 06.11.2015, passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 05 of 2 2010 and Sessions Trial No. 333 of 2010, whereby the said Court has acquitted the accused/respondent Rodhu and Meghraj from the charge of offences punishable under Section 323, 307, 504 & 506 of I.P.C.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the lower Court record.
4. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, Satish, lodged the First Information Report on 15.06.2009 at Police Station Pathri, District Haridwar stating therein that the incident is of 14/15.06.2009 at about 2 O' Clock. The grandfather of the complainant, namely, Gendha Singh and his uncle Atmaram were sleeping in their home. Suddenly, in the night, four armed persons entered into the home. Soon after entering, they awoke the grandfather of the complainant, namely, Gendha S/o Sunda and hurled abuses and forcefully enquired about the father of the complainant, namely, Mannu and uncle, namely, Atmaram and asked him that where is his son and if he does not tell, they will do away his life. Intruders also assaulted the grandfather of the complainant, hurled abuses on him and threatened him of dire consequences and asked him as to where is his elder brother, namely, Mannu Singh. Having fear of life, uncle of the complainant took the accused persons in the house of father of the complainant, namely, Mannu. Three of them reached to the father of the complainant and, one of them, remained at the doorstep of the grandfather of the complainant. Three 3 of them reached to the father of the complainant and surrounded him and with the intention to kill him, Rodhu S/o Bhagwana resident of Hussainpur, Police Station Ramraj, District Muzaffarnagar shot fire, which hit the right side of the chest of the father of the complainant. Immediately, father of the complainant wobbled and made hue & cry. At the very moment, the second person standing adjacent to the accused, namely, Meghraj S/o Rodhu resident of Hussainpur, Police Station Ramraj, District Muzaffarnagar shot second fire, which did not hit the father of the complainant and, in fact, it hit the wall. With the sound of firearm, family members, villagers and neighbours woke up and told "who is there and we have come". On hearing this, four of the accused, namely, Rodhu S/o Bhagwan and Meghraj S/o Rodhu and two unknown persons resident of Hussainpur, Police Station Ramraj, District Muzzafarnagar fled away through the forest. This incident was witnessed by the complainant, uncle of the complainant, namely, Aatmaram and grandfather of the complainant, namely, Gendha Singh resident of Govind Garh, Police Station Pathri. Rest two unknown accused could not be identified. In the report, the complainant requested to lodge an F.I.R. against the accused persons and to take action against them. On the basis of said report, Chik report was prepared and Case Crime no. 75 of 2009 was registered in respect of offence punishable under Section 307, 323, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. against Rodhu S/o Bhagwana, Meghraj S/o Rodhu both residents of Hussainpur, Police Station Ramraj, District 4 Muzzafarnagar and also against two unknown persons. Investigation was taken up by S.I. Vikas Bhardwaj, who interrogated the witnesses and started investigation. After completion of investigation, the said Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the accused persons for their trial in respect of offence punishable under Section 307, 323, 504 & 506 of I.P.C.
5. The Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, on receipt of the chargesheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial on 02.01.2010. After hearing the parties on 31.01.2011, learned IInd F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar framed charge of offence punishable under Section 323, 307, 504 & 506 of I.P.C, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W. 1 Satish Kumar (complainant), P.W.2 Neeraj, P.W.3 Harkali, P.W.4 Kunwar Singh, P.W.5 Aatmaram (uncle of the complainant), P.W.6 Munnu Singh (injured), P.W.7 Constable 876 Dinesh Gaur, P.W.8 S.I. Vikas Bhardwaj (Investigating Officer), P.W.9 Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, P.W.10 S.I. Mahanand and P.W.11 Harpal Singh. Thereafter, oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they alleged that the evidence adduced against them are false. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, opined that the accused persons are 5 entitled for the benefit of doubt and are entitled for acquittal. With this finding, the trial Court acquitted the accused persons, namely, Rodhu & Meghraj from the charge leveled against them. Aggrieved by the common judgment & order dated 06.11.2015, passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.05 of 2010 and Sessions Trial No. 333 of 2010, these Appeals are filed by the State against the order of acquittal before this Court. Thereafter, leave to appeal were granted and appeals were admitted and lower court record was summoned.
6. P.W.1, Satish Kumar, has reiterated the averments made in the F.I.R. In addition, he stated that he and his uncle Subhash took his father, namely, Mannu Singh and his uncle, namely, Aatmaram to the hospital for treatment. He stated that he can recognize the accused persons, if they are confronted with him, who entered in his house, accompanying Meghraj & Rodhu. He stated that he knows Rodhu & Meghraj prior to the incident, as they are in his relations. They are having land dispute with Rodhu and Meghraj. He stated that he himself wrote the report and submitted the same before the Police Station Pathri on 15.06.2009. Being occupied in the treatment of his uncle and his father, he went to the Police Station on 15.06.2009 in order to get the report lodged. He proved the F.I.R. (Ex. A-1), which was written by him in his own handwriting.
67. P.W. 2 Neeraj, in his testimony, has stated that the incident is of about 2 O' Clock on 14.06.2009. He was sleeping in a room of his home. His grandfather was lying in the drawing room. Drawing room is near to the house. Uncle was at home. Rodhu & Meghraj came there, where his grandfather was sleeping. On threatening his grandfather, they asked him as to where his son, namely, Mannu is. Two persons were also there accompanying Rodhu & Meghraj, to whom he did not know. His grandfather took them to his younger uncle, namely, Aatmaram. They assaulted his uncle and they asked about his father, namely, Mannu. All of them surrounded his father and Gedhu Singh shot fire on his father. On hearing the noise, he woke up. Thereafter, he went there. Then, Meghraj shot second fire on his father, which hit on his chest. The second fire did not hit his father. He fell down towards back and no one intervene in between. After that, people gathered there. He stated that he knows Gedhu and Meghraj from last few years, as they went to his village and, at the moment, they resides at Hastinapur.
8. P.W. 3 Harkali, on oath, has stated that the incident is of about 3 years back. It was a summer season and the time was of about 2 O' Clock. His father-in-law, namely, Gendha and brother-in-law, namely, Aatmaram was sleeping in the field. Four hooligans armed with weapons came there. They woke up her father-in-law and, after hurling abuses and extending threat of dire consequences, asked about her 7 brother-in-law and her husband. Frightened with the threat, her father-in-law pointed out towards her brother-in-law, who was lying adjacent to him. Hooligans assaulted her brother-in-law and asked about her husband. Her brother-in-law got threatened and brought them to home. She stated that she and her husband were sleeping in Bagad. Out of them, one hooligan, namely, Rodhu S/o Bhagwana shot fire, which hit on the right chest of her husband. The second hooligan, namely, Meghraj, who is present in the Court, shot fire, which hit the wall. She witnessed the said incident. When they made hue & cry, people from the locality came there, then these hooligans fled away. Light was there, where they were sleeping and they were identified in the light. She stated that she belongs to a rural area and is illiterate.
9. P.W.4 Kunwar Singh has stated on oath that the incident is of 14.06.2009. The incident is about 02/02:30 in the night and he was sleeping at his home. Twice, he heard the sound of firearm. The sound of firearm came from the house of Gendha. Who shot the fire, he does not know. He stated that Rodhu and Meghraj are present in the Court.
10. P.W. 5 Aatmaram stated on oath that the incident is of 14.06.2009 at about 2 O' Clock in the night. He and his father, namely, Gendha was sleeping in their home. Rodhu S/o Bhagwana, Meghraj S/o Rodhu and two unknown persons came there. They woke up his father and, while assaulting his father, 8 they inquired about him. Rodhu and Meghraj were armed with Tamancha. On getting threatened, his father told them about him. Thereafter, Rodhu, Meghraj and two other persons caught hold of him and assaulted him and asked him about his brother Mannu Singh. Being threatened, he told them the house of Mannu Singh. Then Meghraj told that there is Mannu. Thereafter, Rodhu shot fire from his Tamancha, which hit the chest of Mannu Singh. When Mannu Singh made hue & cry, then Meghraj shot another fire, which did not hit Mannu Singh. On hearing the hue & cry of Mannu Singh, villagers came there. At this, four of them fled away. He stated that at his home and also at the home of Mannu, there is electricity. At that time, the light was on. He stated that he also sustained injuries. Then they took the medical treatment from the Hospital. He identified Rodhu and Meghraj in the Court, who came to his house at the time of the said incident armed with Tamanchas.
11. P.W.6 Mannu Singh (injured), in his testimony, has stated that the incident is of 14.06.2009. He was sleeping in his house. His father and his brother, namely, Aatmaram were sleeping in the home. They are four brothers. In the night around 2 O' Clock, Rodhu, Meghraj and one another person, to whom he did not know, brought his brother to him while beating his brother. He woke up on listening the voice of his brother. His brother woke him up. Rodhu shot fire on him, which hit on his right chest towards the shoulder. Another shot was fired by Meghraj, 9 which hit the wall. He stated that with the intention to kill him, they fired on him. He fell down. On hearing hue & cry, people of the locality gathered. Thereafter, they fled away while hurling abuses and extending threat of dire consequences. His wife also came on the spot and shouted. Thereafter, he was taken to the Hospital at Haridwar for getting treatment.
12. P.W. 7 Constable Dinesh Gaur stated on oath that, on 15.06.2009, he was posted on the post of Constable Clerk at Police Station Pathri, District Haridwar. He prepared the Chik Report and made entry in the G.D. (Ex. A-3). He proved Chik F.I.R. (Ex. A-2).
13. P.W.8 S.I. Vikas Bhardwaj (Investigating Officer), in his testimony has stated that the investigation of the instant case was entrusted to him. He investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet against the appellant.
14. P.W. 9 Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh has stated on oath that, being the Medical Officer at H.M.G. Hospital, Haridwar, he examined the injured, namely, Mannu Singh. He proved the medical examination report (Ex. A-8) and supplementary examination report of Mannu Singh (Ex. A-9).
15. P.W.10 S.I. Mahanand has stated on oath that on 02.09.2009, he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Pathri. He was entrusted with the 10 investigation of the instant case on the transfer of earlier Investigating Officer, namely, S.I. Vikas Bhardwaj. He recorded the statement of Meghraj and filed charge sheet against Meghraj in the Court. He proved charge sheet (Ex. A-11).
16. P.W. 11 Harpal Singh has stated that incident is of 14.06.2009 in the night. Gendha Singh and Mannu Singh are his neighbours as well as his relatives. He was sleeping. Twice sound of firearm came from the house of Gendha Ram. On hearing the sound, he went outside and, thereafter, he came to know that hooligans had fired due to enmity. By that time, the hooligans had fled away. He knows Rodhu and Meghraj, they are his uncle (Phoofa), who are present in the Court.
17. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand/appellant submitted that the judgment & order dated 06.11.2015 passed by learned trial Court is against the material available on record. He further submitted that P.W.1 Satish Kumar & P.W.2 Neeraj Singh have clearly supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.3 Harkali deposed in her statement before the learned Court below that the respondent shot fire on her husband Mannu Singh, who got injury at his right chest and the second assailant, namely, Meghraj also shot fire on her husband; but, fortunately which hit the nearby wall of the room. Learned Deputy Advocate General further submitted that P.W.5 (one of the injured) in his examination-in-chief supported the 11 story which has been narrated by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses. Similarly, P.W.6 (the injured), who got firearm injury on his right chest, has also deposed in his examination-in-chief that in the night of 2-6-2009 at about 2 O'clock Rodhu and the co-accused Meghraj made fire over him one by one. The medical report given by the doctor in view of the aforesaid injuries is in corroboration to the statements of prosecution witnesses, which have been ignored by learned trial court. Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the impugned judgment passed by learned IIIrd Additional Session Judge, Haridwar is liable to be set aside and accused respondents deserve to be convicted.
18. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the learned Court below has correctly appreciated the entire evidence and material available on record and has rightly acquitted the respondents. He submitted that charges against the accused Rodha & Meghraj are not proved and there is nothing on record, which could show that the judgment under challenge is perverse.
19. We have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record.
20. From the perusal of the evidence, it is apparent that P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 were not present 12 at the place of incident. P.W.1 in his cross examination has stated that he was not at that place where his grandfather was sleeping. He also stated that when shot was fired, he, his younger brother and mother reached at the spot. He also stated that whatever his father and uncle were telling, he was writing the same in the complaint. Similarly, P.W.2 also in his cross examination stated that he woke up 10 minutes after the incident, thereafter he put on his clothes, which took about two minutes and after one minute he reached at the place of incident. He further stated that when he reached at the place, nobody was there. He then changed his stand and stated that his mother was there. P.W.3 also in her cross examination stated that when she heard the sound of fire, she became unconscious. She also stated that she does not know by what colour of cloth Rodhu and Meghraj covered their mouth. We do not find the statement of these witnesses trustworthy. Father of P.W.5 & P.W.6 Gendha Singh, injured, were not examined in the Court nor they were medically examined. No evidence was adduced in order to show that the accused persons shot fire at the said place, out of which, one hit to P.W.6. Bare perusal of the statements transpires that the parties were having enmity with each other. No medical of P.W.5 & P.W. 6 was conducted by the police. Furthermore, they themselves got medically examined. The fact that injuries sustained by P.W.5 & P.W.6 were inflicted by the accused persons at the place of incident is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, there is no evidence on record 13 with regard to Section 504 & Section 506 of I.P.C. In such a situation, the trial Court is right in giving benefit of doubt to the respondents. Moreover, where two views are possible, on appreciation of evidence on record, and trial Court has taken a view holding that the accused is entitled to benefit of beyond all reasonable doubt, the Appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of fact, unless the finding is totally perverse or against the record. We do not find this case where we should take a different view. The learned trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion of giving benefit of doubt to the respondent. Hence, the view taken by the learned trial Court is not required to be interfered with. We do not find any illegality in the judgment & order dated 06.11.2015, passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 05 of 2010 and Sessions Trial No. 333 of 2010.
21. Therefore, the Appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeals are dismissed. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back.
22. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the connected Appeal.
(Lok Pal Singh, J.) (V.K. Bist, J.)
10.09.2018
Arpan