SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(All) 3760

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Prafulla C.Pant, Nirmal Yadav, JJ.
Amar Singh Rawat (In Jail) -Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarachal (Uttarakhand) -Respondent
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 129 of 2004
Decided On : 22-10-2010

The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and forensic evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. Additionally, the court's affirmation of the rejection of the application under section 311 of Cr.P.C. for summoning a witness highlights the importance of recorded reasons for such decisions.

Headnote:

Section 311 Cr.P.C. - Criminal Procedure Code - Summons - 302 I.P.C., 25/4 Arms Act, 1959 - The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused under section 302 I.P.C. and section 25/4 Arms Act, 1959. The court also discussed the rejection of an application under section 311 of Cr.P.C. for summoning a witness.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under section 302 I.P.C. and section 25/4 Arms Act, 1959 for assaulting and causing the death of the deceased. The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and forensic evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The trial court found the accused guilty and sentenced him accordingly.

Finding of the Court:

The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused under section 302 I.P.C. and section 25/4 Arms Act, 1959. The court also addressed the rejection of an application under section 311 of Cr.P.C. for summoning a witness, stating that the application was rejected after recording sufficient reasons.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the guilt of the accused in the assault and death of the deceased, the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the timing of the First Information Report, and the rejection of the application under section 311 of Cr.P.C. for summoning a witness.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and forensic evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The court also found that the rejection of the application under section 311 of Cr.P.C. for summoning a witness was justified based on recorded reasons.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the accused under section 302 I.P.C. and section 25/4 Arms Act, 1959 were affirmed. The trial court record was to be sent back, and a copy of the judgment was to be sent to the Superintendent of the jail where the accused was serving his sentence.

Under Section 311 Cr.P.C. no witness can be summoned to fulfil the ulterior mo­tives of applicant. Prafulla C.Pant, J.:-

This appeal, preferred under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C.) [received through Superin­tendent District Jail Dehradun], is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.03.2004 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 110 of 2003, whereby said court has convicted the accused/appellant Amar Singh Rawat under section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C), and under section 25/4 Arms Act, 1959. The convict has been sentenced to imprison­ment for life and directed to pay fine of' 5,000/-(under section 302 I.P.C), and rig­orous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of' 1,0001 - (under section 25/4 Arms Act, 1959).

2. Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 25.04.2003, PW1 Ashok Kumar (com­plainant) along with his brother Sanjeev Kumar (PW5) and his mother Savitri Devi (deceased) were grazing there she buffa­loes near Majra bypass. At about 6 pm, their neighbour Amar Singh Rawat (ac­cused/appellant) armed with KHUKRI (Sharp edged weapon) came there and al­leged that Savitri Devi had an evil eye on the buffaloes of the accused due to which they dont give sufficient milk. Thereafter accused Amar Singh Rawat assaulted on the neck of Savitri Devi with KHUKRI and injured her. When PW1 Ashok Kumar and PW5 Sanjeev Kumar rushed to ap­prehend accused Amar Singh Rawat, he escaped with the weapon. Immediately the two brothers took their mother, to a near by hospital from where she was re­ferred to CMI Hospital, Dehradun. Said hospital further referred the injured to Jolly Grant Hospital, but Savitri Devi suc­cumbed to the injuries on his way to said hospital. Thereafter, PW1 Ashok Kumar, at about 10.30, am on 25.04.2003, lodged First Information Report (Ex-Al) at the police out post, Patel Nagar. On the basis of said report Crime No. 38 of 2003 at the outpost and ( Crime No. 244 of 2003 at the police station kotwali) was registered against the accused/appellant Amar Singh Rawat relating to offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. The investigation was taken up by PW8 Sta­tion House Officer Om Prakash Singh. The Investigating Officer took the dead body of the deceased in his possession on 26.04.2003, and prepared the inquest re­port (Ex- A2). He further got prepared other necessary papers, e.g. police form no. 13 (Ex- A10), sketch of dead body (Ex-All), letter to Chief Medical Officer ( Ex -A12) for post mortem examination, and also prepared sample seal ( Ex- A14). The dead body of Savitri Devi was sent for post mortem examination. PW4 Dr. P.C.Kapari conducted post mortem ex­amination on the dead body of the de­ceased on 26.04.2003, at 2.30 pm. He recorded ante mortem injuries including the two incised wounds on the neck of the deceased. He opined that the deceased had died due to shock and hamorrhage, as a result of ante mortem injuries. On the very day the Investigating Officer suc­ceeded in arresting the accused/appellant Amar Singh Rawat and on his pointing out recovered the KHUKRI (knife) used in the crime. The recovery memo (Ex-A3) was prepared on 26.04.2003 in the pres­ence of the witnesses. The blood stained soil and simple soil were taken from the place of incident and the articles includ­ing the knife were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Af­ter inspection of the spot, site plans were prepared of the place of incident, and the place from where the recovery of the weapon was made. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet (Ex A19) against the accused/appellant Amar Singh Rawat, for his trial in respect of offence punish­able under section 302 I.P.C.

4. On receipt of the chargesheet, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, af­ter giving necessary copies to
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top