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

2001 Supreme(UK) 71

HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL
P. C. VERMA, M. C. JAIN
PRATAP SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL - Respondents
Criminal Jail Appeal 2 Of 2000
Decided On : May 14, 2001

Advocates Appeared:
Madhu Tandan

The nature of the victim's injury and the credibility of witnesses were central to the court's decision in upholding the conviction under Section 307, IPC.

Headnote:

FIR Delay - Criminal Law - Section 307, IPC - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under Section 307, IPC for striking an axe blow on the victim's head, causing grievous injury. The incident occurred after the appellant had abused the victim's family and then lured the victim to his house under false pretenses.

Finding of the Court:

The court rejected the appellant's defense and found the prosecution's case proved. The court also addressed arguments regarding FIR delay and the nature of the victim's injury, ultimately upholding the conviction but reducing the sentence.

Issues: Delay in FIR lodging, nature of victim's injury, credibility of witnesses

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that there was no undue delay in lodging the FIR and that the victim's injury was caused by a sharp-edged weapon, supporting the conviction under Section 307, IPC.

Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the appellant's sentence was reduced from ten years to four years of rigorous imprisonment.

M. C. JAIN, J.

( 1 ) ACCUSED-APPELLANT Pratap Singh has preferred this appeal from jail against the judgment and order dated 31-8-2000 passed by Sri Lekha Singh, Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in S. T. No. 27 of 1999, whereby he has been convicted u/s. 307, I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years.


( 2 ) THE prosecution case as emerging from the F. I. R. and the evidence adduced in the Court may be set forth briefly. The incident occurred on 17-5-1999 at about 9 p. m. in village Jumma, P. S. Dharchula, district, Pithoragrah and the written F. I. R. of the incident was lodged by Janaki Devi on 18-5-1999 at 7. 50 a. m. at the concerned police station. The injured and the victim of the incident was her husband Bir Singh. The appellant is his neighbour. On 16-5-1999, in the absence of Bir Singh, the appellant reached his house and hurled filthy abuses on his wife and mother under the influence of liquor. Bir Singh returned his house on 17-5-1999 in the evening from Dharchula and was informed by his wife about the incident of the previous day that the appellant had come over there and hurled abuses. The appellant also happened to reach there again and repented before Bir Singh that while intoxicated he had abused the women-folk of his family the previous day. He requested Bir Singh to accompany him to his house to sink their differences and to bury the old hatchet. As a gesture of good-will, Bir Singh accompanied the appellant to his house at the latter's asking. His mother Govindi Devi, wife Janaki Devi and brother's wife Birma Devi followed him to the house of the appellant. It was night time of about 9 p. m. As soon as Bir Singh sat down at the house of the appellant, he (appellant) struck an axe blow on his head from back side. Receiving injury, he became unconscious, which he regained the following day in the hospital. The mother, wife and brother's wife of Bir Singh raised shouts, which attracted a number of persons, but the appellant ran away. Owing to night time, Bir Singh could only be kept at his house and was taken to Dharchula hospital in the morning, where from he was referred to District Hospital, Pithoragarh after medical examination.

( 3 ) THE medical examination of the victim was conducted by P. W. 2 Dr. Kharak Singh on 18-5-1999 at about 7 a. m. at P. H. C. Dharchula. As per the injury report-Ex. Ka. 1, bleeding head injury 6" x 2 cm. in length was found on back side; whitish matter was coming out from the wound, margins were sharp; the injury had been caused by some sharp object and was dangerous in nature. It had been caused within 24 hours preceding the time of examination.

( 4 ) ON the lodging of the F. I. R. the case was registered against the accused-appellant u/s. 307, I. P. C. and the police started investigation which was conducted by Har Narain Sharma, S. I. The accused appellant was arrested by him and weapon of offence (axe) was also recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant. After the conclusion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant u/s. 307, I. P. C.

( 5 ) AT the trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses, besides relying on documentary evidence. P. W. 1 Bhupendra Singh was examined as an eye-witness and as a witness of recovery of axe by the Investigating Officer at the pointing of the accused-appellant. P. W. 3 Govindi Devi, mother of the victim, P. W. 4 Bir Singh, injured himself and P. W. 5 Janaki Devi, wife of the injured, were examined as other eye-witnesses. As stated earlier, P. W. 2 Dr. Kharak Singh had examined the injury of the injured.

( 6 ) THE defence of the accused was that actually the injured had reached his house and had made him to open his door. He pounced upon him wish Lathi. He (accused-appellant) tried to defend himself and in this process Bir Singh fell down and sustained injury in his head. According to him, the background was that he had asked Govindi Devi (mother of the injured) not to spread her












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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top