BISHAN SINGH vs STATE - 2007 Supreme(UK) 106

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 Supreme(UK) 106

2008 N.C.C. 357
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Veer
Criminal Appeal No. 343/2001
(Old No. 1776/1986)
BISHAN sINGH & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
THE STATE – Respondent
Decided on : 14.03.2007

Advocates:
For the Appellants : Mr.B.S. Adhikari, Learned Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. Nandan Arya, Learned A.G.A.

Headnote:(A) Appreciation of evidence — Complainant/injured having been a witness in a criminal case filed by his witness in instant case — Mere that fact cannot be sufficient to discard her evidence as a prosecution eye-witness of the incident in which complainant was assaulted and injured by the accused persons. (Para 20)
       (B) F.I.R. — Delay in lodging — Explanation for — Sufficiency of — Occurrence took place at 6.30 P.M. — Injured medically examined in hospital at 8.40 p.m. — Chick report prepared on the basis of written report at 11.10 p.m. — F.I.R. in view of facts and circumstances it could not be said that F.I.R. was a concocted one and lodged to falsely implicate the accused with consultation with poolice — More so in view of admission of genuineness thereof by counsel of the accused. (Para 27)
       (C) Motive — Complainant/injured having appeared as a witness against accused in a prior criminal case filed against them — Accused hearing enmity against injured complainant on that account — Same could be sufficient motive for assault on complainant. (Para 29)
       (D) I.P.C., 1860, Secs. 141, 147, 149 — Common object — Six persons/accused participated in commission of crime — Their common object being to assault the victim with intention to kill him — They being members of unlawful assembly used violence — They were guilty of rioting under Section 147, I.P.C. (Para 31)
       (E) I.P.C., 1860, Sec. 308 — Attempt to commit culpable homicide — Intention of accused being to commit culpable homicide — They had enmity with the injured — Threats had also been given to injured by accused persons to kill him — Looking to the seat of injures and facts and circumstances, accused rightly found guilty of offence under Section 308, I.P.C. (Para 33)
       ¼v½ lk{; dk ewY;kadu & f'kdk;rdrkZ@?kk;y dk vkijkf/kd fookn esa xokg gksuk] tks orZeku fookn esa mlds xokg }kjk nk;j fd;k x;k & flQZ bl rF; ds vk/kkj ij] mldh lk{; dks] vfHk;kstu ds izR;{kn'khZ xokg ds :i esa] ml eqdnesa esa Bqdjk;k ugha tk ldrk ftlesa f'kdk;rdrkZ vfHk;qDrksa }kjk geyk dj ?kk;y fd;k x;kA ¼izLrj 20½
       ¼c½ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ & ntZ djkus esa nsjh & dh O;k[;k & dh i;kZIrrk & ?kVuk 6-30 p.m. ij gqbZ & ?kk;y dk 8-40 p.m. ij] vLirky esa ijh{k.k gqvk & ijh{k.k dh fjiksVZ dks fyf[kr fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij 11-10 p.m. cts rS;kj fd;k x;k & rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk Fkk fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dkYifud Fkh rFkk iqfyl ls feyh Hkxr dj] vfHk;qDr dks >w¡Bk Qalkus ds fy;s ntZ djkbZ xbZ Fkh & tcfd vfHk;qDr ds vf/koDrk }kjk Hkh lR; gksus dks eku fy;k x;k FkkA ¼izLrj 27½
       ¼l½ gsrq & f'kdk;rdrkZ@?kk;y] fdlh igys vkijkf/kd eqdnesa esa tks muds fo#) nk;j fd;k x;k Fkk & vfHk;qDr ds fo#) xokg ds :i esa] vk;k & bl otg ls vfHk;qDr ds eu esa ?kk;y f'kdk;rdrkZ ds izfr nq'euh Fkh & og f'kdk;rdrkZ ij geys gsrq i;kZIr gsrq FkkA ¼izLrj 29½
       ¼n½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk&141]147]149 & leku vk'k; & N% O;fDr;ksa@vfHk;qDrksa us feydj vijk/k dkfjr fd;k & ekjus dh uh;r ls ihfM+r ij geyk] mudk leku vk'k; gksuk & fof/k&fo#) teko ds lnL; gksrs gq, mudk fagalk dk iz;ksx djuk & os Hkkjrh; n.M laafgrk dh /kkjk&147 ds vUrxZr naxk djus ds nks"kh FksA ¼izLrj 31½
       ¼;½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk&308 & lnks"k ekuo o/k dk iz;kl & vfHk;qDr dk vk'k; lnks"k ekuo o/k dkfjr djus dk gksuk & mudh ?kk;y ls jaft'k Fkh & ?kk;y dks vfHk;qDrksa }kjk tku ls ekjus dh /kefd;ka Hkh nh xbZ Fkha & pksVksa ds LFkku rFkk rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[kus ij] vfHk;qDr dks Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk&308 ds vUrxZr] lgh nks"kh ik;k x;kA ¼izLrj 33½

JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Dharam Veer, J.

This criminal appeal, U/s 374(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 17.6.1986, passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, in S.T. No. 76 of 1985, convicting the appellants Bishan Singh, Arjun Singh, Sheoraj Singh, Govind Singh, Bhairav Dutt and Govind Ballabh, under Sections 147, 308/149 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred 'I.P.C.') and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year for the offence U/s 147 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for a term of four years U/s 308/149 I.P.C. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

2. During the pendency of appeal, accused/appellants Arjun Singh, Sheoraj Singh, Govind Singh and Bhairav Dutt have died. The confirmation report of the death of appellants Arjun Singh, Sheoraj Singh, and Govind Singh has been received from the C.J.M. Nainital vide his letter dated 16.12.2006 whereas the death report of appellant Bhairav Dutt sent by C.J.M. Nainital is dated 22.2.2007 on the file. Hence the appeal has abated against all these accused/appellants.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.9.1984 at 6.30 P.M. Harish Bhatt was coming towards his village and when he was on the road, accused Bishan Singh, Arjun Singh, Sheoraj Singh, Govind Singh, Bhairav Dutt and Govind Ballabh began to beat him with Lathis. They also took out Rs. 400/- kept in his pocket. When the accused persons were beating Harish Bhatt, his brother Ghanshyam Dutt Bhatt, who was coming from the market, came there and saved him. The accused persons were inimical to Harish Bhatt, therefore they attacked him with intention to cause his death. Ghanshyam Dutt brought the injured in the hospital, where he was medically examined. The injured Harish Bhatt got written the F.I.R., Ext. Ka.1 and handed over it to his brother Ghanshyam Dutt, who lodged it at P.S. Haldwani. On the basis of the F.I.R., Ext. Ka.1, chick report, Ext. Ka.7 was prepared at the Police Station and a case U/Ss 147, 323, 506 I.P.C. was registered against the accused persons at report No. 69 dated 30.9.1984, the copy of which is Ext.Ka.8.

4. On 30.9.1984, at 8.40 P.M. Dr. J.S. Pangtey (P.W. 6), Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Haldwani, medically examined injured Harish Chandra Bhatt and found the following injuries on his person :-

1. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm on scalp at right parietal region, 14 cm above the right eye-brow. Scalp deep. Fresh bleeding present.

2. Lacerated wound 5 cm x ½ cm x scalp deep, on scalp, at right parietal area, 19 cm above the right eye-brow.

3. Lacerated wound 3 cm x ¼ cm x skin deep, 4 cm above the right eye-brow at right forehead, 6 cm x 7 cm swelling around the wound.

4. Abrasion 1 cm x ½ cm, at upper lip, 3 cm from the right angle of the mouth.

5. Abrasion 1 cm x ½ cm at lower lip right angle of mouth.

6. Contusion mark 10 cm x 5 cm above right shoulder reddish in colour. Swelling 2 cm around the wound.

7. Contusion mark 6 cm x 6.5 cm on above and front and middle of left arm, 13 cm below the shoulder joint 1 cm swelling around the injury.

8. Contusion 12 cm x 10 cm at fore-arm, 8 cm from the left wrist joint ½ cm swelling around the injury.

9. Complain of pain in both lower legs and thigh but no injury seen.

In the opinion of the Medical Officer injury Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were simple whereas injury Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 were kept under observation and advice was given for x-ray. This witness has proved the injury report, Ext. Ka.3 prepared by him. X-ray of the injured was taken and on the basis of x-ray plates (Exts. 1 and 2) Dr. J.S. Pangtey prepared supplementary report dated 1.10.84, Ext. Ka.4. In the opinion of this witness there was fracture of ulna with dislocation of wrist joint. Injury No. 7 was grievous. The Doctor opined that the injuries could have been caused on the date of the medical examination, i.e. 30.9.84 at about 6.30 P.M.

5. The investigation of the ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(UK) 106

2008 N.C.C. 357UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURTHon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam VeerCriminal Appeal No. 343/2001(Old No. 1776/1986)BISHAN sINGH & ORS. – AppellantsVersusTHE STATE – RespondentDecided on : 14.03.2007

2008 N.C.C. 357
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Veer
Criminal Appeal No. 343/2001
(Old No. 1776/1986)
BISHAN sINGH & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
THE STATE – Respondent
Decided on : 14.03.2007