TRILOK SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(UK) 486

2007 N.C.C. 26
UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal
TRILOK SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1057 of 2001
Decided on : 30.08.2006

Advocates:
For the Appellant :Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Nandan Arya, A.G.A. for the State

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 307 – Accused/Appellant charged with Sec. 307 I.P.C. – But he was convicted under Sec. 326 I.P.C. – PW-3 have been produced by prosecution as eyewitness – Who also corroborated the version of PW-1 & PW-2 – But he has not been interrogated by the Investigating officer – I.O. has also deposed that he had seen the injury on the head of injured – But even then he did not think it is necessary to get him medically examined – This clearly shows that proper investigation was not done – But the wrong investigation alone is not going to damage the prosecution case – Witnesses produced by prosecution are closely related to the accused – And it is not expected that witnesses shall falsely implicated the accused/appellant – That prosecution has established the guilt of the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt – Trial Court rightly convicted accused under Section 326 I.P.C. (Para 16, 20)
       (B) Indian Penal Code – 1860 – Section 326 – Accused/Appellant convicted under section 326 IPC – The incident in this case took place in the year 1977 i.e. 29 years ago – The appellant was aged about 33 years at that time – Under the aforesaid circumstances – It would not be in the interest of justice to send the appellant again to jail in order to serve out the sentence imposed against him by trial court – The record reveals that appellant had already been in jail during trial for about 40 days – It will be just and proper to impose a fine of Rs. 5000/- against the accused/appellant in default of payment of fine – Then he will have to undergo imprisonment of the period awarded by trial court. (Para 21)
       ¼v½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk 1860 & /kkjk 307 & vfHk;qDr vihykFkhZ dks /kkjk 307 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa vkjksfir fd;k x;k & ijUrq nks"kflf) /kkjk 326 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa nh xbZ & ih-MCyw-&3 dks p'enhn xokg ds :i esa is'k fd;k x;k & ftlus ih-MCyw-&1 ,oa ih-MCyw-&2 ds vfHklk{; dh iqf"V dh gS & ijUrq vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh us mlls iwNrkN ugha dh & vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh us vfHklk{; fn;k fd mlus pksfVy ds flj ij pksV yxh ns[kh Fkh & ijUrq fQj Hkh mlus mldk fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k djkuk mfpr ugha le>k & ;g Li"Vr% n'kkZrk gS fd vUos"k.k mfpr izdkj ls ugha fd;k x;k & ijUrq dsoy =qfViw.kZ vUos"k.k vfHk;kstu ds okn dks gkfu ugha igq¡pkrk & vfHk;kstu }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s lk{kh vfHk;qDr ds utnhdh fj'rsnkj gSa & ;g mEehn ugha dh tk ldrh fd lk{khx.k vfHk;qDr@vihykFkhZx.k dks >wBk Qalk;saxs & vfHk;kstu us] vfHk;qDr@vihykFkhZx.k ds fo#) viuk okn lansg ls ijs lkfcr fd;k gS & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vfHk;qDrx.k dks /kkjk 326 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa lgh nks"kfl) fd;k gSA ¼izLrj 16] 20½
       ¼c½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk 1860 & /kkjk 326 & vfHk;qDr@vihykFkhZ dks /kkjk 326 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa nks"k fl) fd;k x;k & bl okn dh ?kVuk 1977 vFkkZr yxHkx 29 o"kZ iwoZ ?kfVr gqbZ Fkh & vihykFkhZ ml le; yxHkx 33 o"kZ dk Fkk & mijksDr of.kZr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa & ;g U;k;fgr esa ugha gksxk fd vihykFkhZ dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s n.M dh ltk Hkqxrus ds fy;s nksckjk ls tsy Hkstk tk;s & vfHkys[k ls ;g Li"V gS fd vihykFkhZ fopkj.k ds nkSjku yxHkx 40 fnu tsy esa jgk Fkk & ;g mfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gksxk fd vfHk;qDr@vihykFkhZ ij 5000@& dk tqekZuk fd;k tk;s & tqekZuk vnk u djus dh ih MCY;w d esa & og fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s dkjkokl dks Hkqxrus dk nk;h gksxkA ¼izLrj 21½

Judgment

This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 31.8.1981, passed by the then Sessions Judge, Chamoli, in Sessions Trial No. 4/1981, convicting the accused/appellant Trilok Singh U/S 326 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 2½ years.

2. According to the prosecution the accused Trilok Singh and injured belonged to same pedigree. Dev Singh had three sons namely Dharam Singh (father of accused Trilok Singh), Kedar Singh (since deceased – husband of Smt. Raji Devi, PW-1 and father of Bhawan Singh, PW-2) and Shiv Singh (PW-3). As per the prosecution case on 12.11.1977 Bhawan Singh was returning back to his home from his school and at about 5.00 p.m., 1½ kilometer prior to the Village, Trilok Singh accused met him in the way. His daughter Km. Sarda was also with the accused Trilok Singh. The accused questioned Bhawan Singh as to why he had abused Km. Sarda and on his denial, he struck a stone on the head of Bhawan Singh with the result that he received injury. Thereafter when in the evening Bhawan Singh was present near the cowshed of Shiv Singh, Kedar Singh, father of Bhawan Singh, came there and questioned the accused as to why he had caused injury to his son. Thereupon the accused went inside his house, brought an unlicensed gun and fired at shot at Kedar Singh with the result he fell injured on the ground. The occurrence was witnessed by Smt. Raji Devi, Bhawan Singh and Shiv Singh. Then on 13.11.1977 at 8.00 a.m. Jaman Singh, Pradhan of the village, lodged the report, Ext. Ka. 1 with the Patwari Circle Bura. On the basis of the written report, case was registered against the accused vide G.D. entry, Ext. Ka. 2. Patwari Narendra Prasad Mishra immediately went to the spot and prepared site-plan of the place of the occurrence, Ext. Ka.3. The I.O. took into possession the paijama of the injured, vide recovery memo Ext. Ka. 4 and sent the injured Kedar Singh for medical examination.

3. On 14.11.1977 at 11.30 A.M. injured Kedar Singh was medically examined by Dr. L.K. Rastogi, in the District Hospital, Gopeshwar.

4. On transfer of Narendra Prasad Mishra, Patwari, the investigation of the case was handed over to Garib Dass Patwari. According to the prosecution case the muzzle loading gun, which was used by Trilok Singh in the incident, belonged to Sher Singh and the gun was also recovered after the incident from the possession of Sher Singh, hence after completion of the investigation the I.O. submitted charge sheet, Ext. Ka. 5 against the accused Trilok Singh U/Ss 304 I.P.C. and 25 Arms Act, and charge sheet, Ext. Ka. 6 against accused Sher Singh U/S 25 Arms Act.

5. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge discharged the accused Sher Singh from the offence U/S 25(a)(e) of the Arms Act and framed charge U/S 307 I.P.C. against the accused Trilok Singh. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution in order to prove its case, produced in all five witnesses.

7. PW-1, Smt. Raji Devi is the widow of deceased Kedar Singh. This witness has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, a quarrel took place between her son Bhawan Singh and the accused Trilok Singh, in which the accused gave blow of a stone on the head of Bhawan Singh. Lateron when she returned her home after taking grass from the jungle, her husband Kedar Singh asked accused Trilok Singh as to why he beat Bhawan Singh. At this the accused went inside his room and brought out a gun and fired shot at Kedar Singh, who after sustaining gun shot fell down. This witness also alleged that at the time of incident Shiv Singh, his wife Jasma Devi and their son Narayan Singh were also there.

8. PW-2, Bhawan Singh, is the person who was given stone-blow by the accused prior to the present incident. This witness has also corroborated the version given by PW-1, Smt. Raji Devi.

9. PW-3, Shiv Singh is also the witness of fact. He has deposed that when the incident too

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(UK) 486

2007 N.C.C. 26UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURTHon’ble Mr. Justice B.C. KandpalTRILOK SINGH – AppellantVersusSTATE OF UTTARANCHAL – RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 1057 of 2001Decided on : 30.08.2006

2007 N.C.C. 26
UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal
TRILOK SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1057 of 2001
Decided on : 30.08.2006