Back
2010 Supreme(UK) 102
2010 (1) N.C.C. 764
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nirmal Yadav
Government Appeal No. 190 of 2001
(Old No. 1516 of 1998)
STATE – Appellant
Versus
RANJEET SINGH & 2 ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 15.03.2010
For the Appellant : Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned G.A.
For the Complainant :Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate
For the Responent :Mr. J.S. Virk, Advocate
Headnote:(A) Witnesses — Related witness — Testimony of — Reliability of — Credibility of a witness is not affected by the mere fact that he is related to the deceased — A relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person.
(Paras 15, 16)
(B) Appeal against acquittal — Interference in — Powers of court for — Scope and ambit of — Though High Court, while hearing an appeal against an acquittal, has powers as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against conviction — While exercising its appellate jurisdiction the High Court can reappraise evidence, arrive at findings at variance with those recorded by the trial court in its order of acquittal and arrive at its own findings — Yet, the salutary principle which would guide the High Court is — If two views are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other recording a conviction, High Court would not interfere merely because it feels that sitting as a trial court its view would have been one of recording a conviction. (Paras 27, 28)
¼v½ lk{kh & lEcU/kh lk{kh dh xokgh dh fo'oluh;rk & lk{kh dh fo'oluh;rk dsoy bl ckr ls izHkkfor ugha gksrh gS fd og e`rd dk lEcU/kh gS & ,d lEcU/kh lgh vijk/kh dks ugha Nqik ;k cpkuk ugha pkgsxk rFkk mlds ctk; fdlh funksZ"k dks ugha Qalkuk pkgsxkA ¼izLrj 15] 16½
¼c½ nks"keqfDr ds fo#) vihy esa gLr{ksi ds fo"k; esa U;k;ky; ds vf/kdkjksa dh lhek ;|fi tc mPp U;k;ky; nks"keqfDr ds fo#) vihy lqu jgk gS rc mlds vfèkdkjksa dk {ks= mruk gh foLr`r gS ftruk nks"kflf) ds fo#) vihy lquus esa & tc mPp U;kky; nks"keqfDr ds fo#) vihy lqurk gS mls lk{; ds fo'ys"k.k djus] ijh{k.k U;k;ky; ls fHké fu"d"kZ ij igq¡pus dk iw.kZ vf/kdkj izkIr gS fdUrq mlds fn'kk funsZ'k gsrq eq[; fl)kUr ;g gS fd ;fn ;qfDr;qDr nks n`f"Vdks.k laHko gSa ftuesa ls ,d nks"keqfDr ds i{k esa rFkk nwljk nks"kflf) ds i{k esa rc mPp U;k;ky; dsoy bl dkj.k nks"keqfDr ds vkns'k ds fo#) vihy esa gLr{ksi ugha djsxk fd ;fn og ijh{k.k U;k;ky; ds LFkku ij dk;Z djrk gksrk rks mldk n`f"Vdks.k ltk;kch ds i{k esa gksrkA ¼izLrj 27] 28½
[Per : Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.]
This Government Appeal, arises out against the judgment and order dated 18.2.1998, passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, in S.T. No. 368 of 1996, whereby the accused/respondents Ranjeet Singh, Jaswant Singh and Gurmel Singh have been acquitted of the charges U/Ss 147, 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C.
2. The prosecution story, in short, is that accused/respondents and complainant Harmeet Singh are related to each other. Prior to the incident, litigation pertaining to three acres land was going on between Jagjeet Singh, father of the complainant Harmeet Singh, and the accused persons and there was enmity among them in respect of the land. On 25.3.1996 deceased Jagjeet Singh had gone to attend a marriage at the house of his friend Gurmeet Singh in village Ganeshpur. When he did not return home upto 8-9 p.m., then complainant Harmeet Singh, Gurmel Singh, frined of the father of complainant, and Narpal Singh, maternal uncle of the complainant, went in search of his father in a tractor on Bazpur road. When these persons reached on Bazpur road, one kilometer away from their Birha Farm, then they in the red light of the tractor saw that motorcycle of Jagjeet Singh was lying in the field of Chaudhary. They stopped the tractor. They also saw that accused Ranjeet Singh was crushing Jagjeet Singh by tractor in the field of Chaudhary and accused Gurmel Singh and Jaswant Singh were sitting on the Bonnet of the tractor. On account of this incident, Jagjeet Singh died at the spot. The complainant and his companion tried to get down from the tractor so as to save Jagjeet Singh, but accused Ranjeet Singh and his 3-4 associates did not permit them to do so and extended threats to their lives also. Due to the fear of the accused persons, the complainant did not lodge the F.I.R. in the night. On 26.3.1996 at 6.40 A.M. the complainant lodged the F.I.R., Ext. Ka-1, at the police station. On the basis of written F.I.R., chick F.I.R., Ext. Ka-10 was drawn at the police station.
3. The investigation of the case was conducted by Sri Roop Singh Yadav, Station Officer. On 26.3.1996, S.I. P.C. Verma, P.W.5, accompanied the I.O. to the place of occurrence and conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report, Ext. Ka-2. He also prepared challan laas, Ext. Ka-5, Police Form-35, Ext. Ka-6, sketch dead body, Ext. Ka-7. Thereafter he sealed the dead body and sent it for postmortem. On 26.3.96 the I.O. recorded the statements of Harmeet Singh, complainant and Onkar Singh. He inspected the spot and prepared site-plan, Ext. Ka-10. He also took into possession the motorcycle of deceased from the field of Chaudhary, and the memo, Ext. Ka-8 was prepared by P.C. Verma. On 27.3.96 he recorded the statements of Swarn Singh, Gajendra Singh and arrested accused Ranjeet Singh, Jaswant Singh and Gurmel Singh. On 30.3.1996 he recovered the tractor no. 733 from Atma Singh, father of accused Gurmel Singh and prepared its memo Ext. Ka-6.
4. The post mortem on the dead body of deceased Jagjeet Singh was conducted by Dr. S. Ahmad, in L.D. Bhatt Hospital Kashipur on 26.3.1996, at 2 P.M. and he has found the following ante-mortem injuries on his person :-
1. Lacerate wound 4 cm x .15 cm x scalp deep over forehead, 5 cm above the left eye brow.
2. Lacerated wound 13 cm x 10 cm x bone deep over right side head involving also right side forehead and right side face.
3. Abraded contusion 20 cm x 3.5 cm over right side upper part of front of chest and shoulder.
4. Multiple abrasion 22 cm x 8 cm over lower part of front of right side chest and upper part of abdomen.
5. Multiple abrasion 12 cm x 6 cm over upper part of left side abdomen.
6. Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm over left side chest, 5 cm above the nipple.
7. Abrasion 4 cm x 2 cm over medial side of left thigh, 4 cm above the knee joint.
8. Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm over front of right knee joint.
In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was coma, as
