Back
2009 Supreme(UK) 563
2010 (1) N.C.C. 432
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
Government Appeal No. 412 of 2003 With
Government Appeal No. 33 of 2009 and Government Appeal No. 34 of 2009
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL – Appellant
Versus
ROSHAN LAL & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 19.11.2009
For the Appellant : Mr. S.S. Adhikari, AGA
For the Respondents:Mr. B.S. Parihar, Advocate
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 154 — Delay in lodging F.I.R. — Non-explanation of — Held — When there is unexplained delay of about 22 hours in lodging the F.I.R. — Benefit of doubt ought to be given to the accused persons. (Paras 12 & 14)
(B) Benefit of Doubt — Chance Witness — Non disclosing as to who caused which injury and who was armed with Gandasa, who was armed with Lathi and who was armed with iron rod — His presence at the place of incident, doubtful — Also, the statements of injured, not supported by witnesses — Learned Sessions Judge did not commit any illegality or perversity in acquitting the accused Nos. 2 and 4 by giving benefit of doubt — Also benefit of doubt ought to be extended to accused Nos. 1 and 3 — Accordingly, the accused Nos. 1 and 3 also acquitted.
(Paras 12, 13, 14)
¼v½ n.M izfd;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 154 & izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds ntZ djkus esa gq, foyEc dk Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k x;k Fkk & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k fd tc 22 ?kaVs dh nsjh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds ntZ djkus esa gks vkSj mldk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k u fn;k x;k gks rks vfHk;qDrksa dks lansg dk ykHk fn;k tk ldrk gSA ¼izLrj 12 ,oa 14½
¼c½ lansg dk ykHk & voljoknh lk{kh ds }kjk ;g u crk;k x;k gks fd fdl ds }kjk dkSu lh pksV igq¡pkbZ xbZ Fkh vkSj fdl ds ikl xaMklh Fkh] o fdl ds ikl ykBh Fkh vkSj fdl ds ikl lfj;k Fkk & mldh mifLFkfr ?kVukLFky ij lafnX/k Fkh & pksfVy O;fDr;ksa ds c;ku Hkh lkf{k;ksa }kjk iq"V ugha Fks & ekU; vfrfjDr l= U;k;kèkh'k }kjk lansg dk ykHk nsdj vfHk;qDr uEcj 2 vkSj 4 dks nks"keqDr fd;s tkus esa dksbZ voS/kkfudrk vFkok =qfV ugha dh xbZ & vfHk;qDr uEcj 1 vkSj 3 dks Hkh lansg dk ykHk fn;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk & rnuqlkj vfHk;qDr uEcj 1 vkSj 3 dks Hkh nks"keqDr fd;k x;kA ¼izLrj 12] 13] 14½
Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/appellants.
2. Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Vide order dated 30.06.2009 this court directed not to list Government Appeal No. 34 of 2009 and it may struck off from the record of the Registry, hence, there is no need to pass any order in GA No. 34 of 2009.
4. Government Appeal No. 33 of 2009 is filed for enhancement of the sentence under sections 323, 324, 504 read with 34 IPC. Government Appeal No. 412 of 2003 is filed by the State against the acquittal of respondent no. 2 and 4. With the consent of the parties, Government Appeal No. 412 of 2003 is taken up as a leading appeal.
5. Brief facts of the present case are that a report was lodged by Ved Prakash Sharma on 24.04.1999 in Police Station – Pathari, District Haridwar contending that on 23.04.1999 while his son Pawan Kumar was coming back to his home from the field accused Roshan Lal, Mahendra Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Vicky stopped him and said what did you think of yourself and started assaulting Pawan Kumar with intention to kill him with Iron Rod, Lathi and Gandasi. Pawan Kumar raised alarm and hearing his alarm Bhupeshwar Dutt, Durga Das and Raj Kumar reached on the spot, saw the incident and rescued Pawan Kumar from the accused. It was further contended in the report that thinking that Pawan Kumar has died accused escaped from the spot.
6. FIR/Chik repot as case crime no. 44 of 1999 was registered under sections 323, 307, 504 IPC with Police Station – Pathari, District Haridwar. After completing the investigation chargesheet was submitted under sections 307, 323, 504 IPC. Learned ACJM, Haridwar vide its order dated 31.01.2000 committed the case for trial to the Sessions Judge, Haridwar, which was ultimately transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar.
7. From the side of the prosecution informant – Ved Prakash was examined as PW 1, Pawan Kumar – injured son of Ved Prakash was examined as PW2, Raj Kumar son of Amolak Ram was examined as PW3. Investigating Officer Shiv Kumar Tyagi was examined as PW4. Dr. K.K. Karoli was examined as PW5.
8. Dr. K.K. Karoli PW5 found following injuries in the medical examination of injured Pawan Kumar :
“i. Incised wound 7 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep right side head 10 cm above right ear obliquely placed with bleeding present, kept under observation with clean cut by sharp edged with bleeding nose and head. Kept under observation.
ii. Incised wound 1.0 cm x 0.4 cm on lateral of nose 3 cm above the tip of nose tattooing with swelling area 5 x 4.0 cm, kept under observation with bleeding present, clean cut sharp edged, advised x-ray with reddish in color with pain, difficulty in the movement.
iii. Contusion 6.0 cm x 3.0 cm on lateral aspect of right upper arm, 5.0 cm above right elbow joint with reddish in color, complaining pain, difficult in the movement.
iv. Contusion 7 cm x 3 cm on lateral aspect of left knee joint with pain, reddish in colour, complaining of movement.
v. Contusion 3 cm x 1.5 cm on medial aspect of right leg, 10 cm above medial mellow with pain, reddish in colour, complaining of movement.
vi. Contusion 5 cm x 3 cm on bade of elbow joint, complaining pain and reddish in color, complaining of difficult in movement.
vii. Abrasion 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm on tip of left little finger with blood clotting present.
viii. C/o pain on chest, complaining the difficulty on the part of the abdomen.”
9. In the opinion of Doctor injuries no. 1 and 2 were caused by sharp edge weapon while rest of the injuries were caused by the blunt object. There is supplementary medical report which shows that nasal bone also was found fractured.
10. Learned Sessions Judge after examining the entire records and statements of prosecution witnesses returned the finding of fact that injured Pawan Kumar had no injury caused by iron rod. Hence, by extending the benefit of doubt to the respondent nos. 2 and 4 herein acquitted them. Learned Trial Court found respo
