Back
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Prafulla C.Pant, Nirmal Yadav, JJ.
State of U.P.(Now State of Uttarakhand) -Appellant
Versus
Veerbal Singh Rawal & Ors. -Respondent
Government Appeal No. 1600 of 2001 (Old No. 2929 of 2000)
Decided On : 5-10-2010
Acquittal - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/34, 120-B - [Section 378, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/34, 120-B]
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the judgment and order acquitting the accused respondents from the charge of offences punishable under Section 302/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution failed to prove the charges, and the trial court acquitted the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution witnesses did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The court held that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court was not based on misreading of evidence and was not perverse.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused respondents from the charges under Section 302/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was justified based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that where two views are possible on the basis of evidence on record, and the trial court has accepted one, it is not desirable to reverse the findings recorded by the trial court unless the same is perverse or against the evidence on record.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the lower court's judgment acquitting the accused respondents was upheld.
This appeal preferred under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against judgment and order dated 22.07.2000 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Sessions Trial No. 259 of 1995 whereby said court has acquitted accused respondents, Veerbal Singh Rawal, Ashok Kumar Sharma and Sushil Chauhan from the charge of offences punishable under Section 302/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC).
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.
3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 29.05.1993, at about 1:00 p.m. near Karnataka Dharmshala (within the limits of Police Station Kotwali, Haridwar) Sanat Kumar Sharma, a social worker, was driving his car bearing registration no. UGY-4488. PW-2 Sardar Daljeet Singh was sitting with him in said vehicle. Suddenly two persons in a scooter of make Bajaj came close to the car in which two persons were sitting. One of them, who was sitting as pillion rider came close to Sanat Kumar Sharma fired shots from a firearm weapon. Ashwani Kumar Sharma (PW-1), the complainant, lodged the first information report (Exihibit-Al) at Police Station Kotwali, Haridwar, on 29.05.1993. On the basis of report (Exihibit-Al) crime no. 704 of 1993 was registered at police station Kotwali, Haridwar against two unknown persons relating to offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The investigation was taken up by PW-14 Shiv Mant Singh, the then Inspector at the police station. Immediately after the first information report was registered, he proceeded for inspection to the place of incident and" prepared site plan (Exhibit A-15). He directed Sub Inspector Bhan Singh to prepare inquest report. PW-13 Sub Inspector Bhan Singh, on 29.05.1993 at about 14-15 p.m. took the dead boy of Sanat Kumar Sharma in his possession and prepared inquest report (Exhibit A8). He also got prepared sketch of dead body (Exhibit A9), police form number 13 (Exhibit A10), sample seal (Exhibit All) and letter to Chief Medical Officer (Exhibit A12). Meanwhile the Investigating Officer took the bloodstained concrete and simple concrete from the spot and prepared memorandum (Exhibit A13). The dead body was sent in a sealed condition for postmortem examination. PW-11 Dr. K.P. Sarabhai on the very day (on 29.05.1993) at about 4:50 p.m. conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Sanat Kumar Sharma. He found firearm wound of entry as ante mortem injury, which he recorded in the autopsy report (Exhibit A6). The medical officer opined that the cause of death of the deceased was on account of haemorrhage and shock due to ante mortem injury. The Investigating Officer, after interrogating the witnesses, arrested accused Veerbal Singh Rawal, Ashok Kumar Sharma and Sushil Chauhan. Further investigation was taken over by PW-15 Inspector Surendra Bahadur Singh. Meanwhile a Test Identification Parade was held on 31.07.1993 after the arrest of Veerbal Singh and Ashok Kumar Sharma, who were put to identification parade. Howeve' (PW-2) Sardar Daljeet Singh, who v ?s sitting with the deceased in the car, could not identify any of the two arrested accused. Test identification memorandum (Exhibit A13) was prepared by the Magistrate concerned before whom test identification parade was conducted. However, the Investigating Officer did recover scooter said to have been used in the crime on pointing out of accused Veerbal Singh. Believing that the deceased had been murdered after the conspiracy hatched by the accused-respondents, chargesheet (Exhibit A17) was filed by the Investigating Officer against four persons, namely, Veerbal Singh, Nanak Chand Sharma (since died), Ashok Kumar Sharma and Sushil Chauhan.
4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, on receipt of the chargesheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, appears to have committed the case to the court of sessions for trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hardiwar, on
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
