2011 (1) N.C.C. 1
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant and
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
HARBANSH SINGH & oRS. – Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
STATE OF U.P. (NOW STATE OF UTTARAKHAND) – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2001
(Old No. 1433 of 1999)
Decided on : 01.12.2010
(B) F.I.R. — Lodging of by a minor child of 12 years of age who was eye-witness to the murder of his father — Help by police officer in giving written version of the prosecution story — Nothing unnatural on part of Police Officer — A 12 year old child cannot be expected to know how to write or dictate F.I.R. (Para 11)
(C) Injuries on person of accused — Failure of prosecution to explain — Effect of — All kinds of injuries on person of an accused are not required to be explained — Settled principle of law in that regard is that superficial injury or the injuries which could have been caused at any time other than the incident in question are not required to be explained by the prosecution. (Para 12)
(D) Motive for commission of crime — Significance of — Where there is ocular evidence of eye-witnesses relating to commission of murder by the accused — Prosecution is not required to prove the motive.
(Para 13)
(E) Non-proudcition of blood stained soil by prosecution and not sending the same for chemical examination — Effect of — No reasonable doubt could be said to have been created in prosecution story — Such lapse on the part of prosecution could have been said to be relevant in a case of circumstantial evidence — Such failure is not suficient to disbelieve ocular testimony of eye-witnesses, particularly the injured eye-witnesses. (Para 14)
(F) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 157(1) — Delay in sending F.I.R. to Magistrate under — Effect of — Some delay in despatch of FIR to the Magistrate — Not sufficient to throw out the prosecution case.
(Para 15)
¼v½ lg&vfHkqDr dh nks"keqfDr ds vk/kkj ij vU; lg&vfHkqDrksa dk viuh nks"keqfDr ds nkos dk vkSfpR; & nks"keqDr lg&vfHkqDr dh nks"keqfDr mldks bl vkèkkj ij 'kd dk ykHk nsrs gq, dh xbZ fd og yaxMk ,oa vikfgt gksus ds dkj.k vijk/k esa Hkkx ysus ds v;ksX; ik;k x;k & vU; lg&vfHkqDr vikfgt vkSj yaxM+s uk gksus ds dkj.k mudks lekurk ds vk/kkj ij nks"keqfDr dk ykHk ugha fn;k tk ldrkA ¼izLrj 10½
¼c½ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ,d 12 o"kZ dh vk;q ds vo;Ld cPps }kjk tks vius firk ds dRy dk p'enhn xokg Fkk fy[kdj nh tkus esa ;fn iqfyl vf/kdkjh us mldh dksbZ lgk;rk dj nh rks mlesa dksbZ vizkdfrd ckr ugha gS & ,d 12 o"kZ dh vk;q ds vYio;Ld cPps ls ;g vk'kk ugha dh tk ldrh fd og ;g tkurk fd FIR dSls fy[kh ;k cksydj fy[kkbZ tk ldrh gSA ¼izLrj 11½
¼l½ vfHk;qDr ds 'kjhj ij pksVksa dk vfHk;kstu }kjk Li"Vhdj.k uk fn;s tkus dk izHkko & vfHk;qDr ds 'kjhj ij gj@lc pksVksa dk Li"Vhdj.k vfHk;kstu }kjk fn;k tkuk vko';d ugha gS & fof/k dk laiq"V fl)kUr mDr fo"k; esa ;g gS fd vfHk;kstu ds fy;s ;g vko';d ugha gS fd og lqijfQf'k;y pksVksa ;k ,slh pksVksa dk Li"Vhdj.k ns tks ?kVuk ls vU;= fdlh le; ij vkbZ gksA ¼izLrj 12½
¼n½ gsrq & vijk/k djus ds gsrq dk egRo & tgk¡ p'enhn xokgksa dk lk{; dRy ds vijk/k ds ?kfVr gksus lEcU/kh gks & ogk¡ gsrq dk dksbZ egRo ugha gksrk gSA
¼izLrj 13½
¼;½ jDr ;qDr feV~Vh dk U;k;ky; esa izLrqr uk djus rFkk mls dSfedy tkap ds fy;s uk Hksts tkus ls vfHk;kstu dsl ij dksbZ izfrdwy izHkko ugha iM+rk gS & ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; ds dsl esa vfHk;kstu dh ,slh vlQyrk izklkaxd gks ldrh gS & ,slh vlQyrk p'enhn xokgku dh xokgh fo'ks"k :i ls pqVSy xokgksa ds lk{; dks vfo'oluh; cukus ds fy;s dkQh ugha gSA ¼izLrj 14½
¼j½ n.M izfd;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 157¼1½ & izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks eftLVªsV dks Hkstus esa nsjh dk izHkko & mDr fo"k; esa dqN nsjh gks tkuk vfHk;kstu ds dsl dks Bqdjk nsus ds fy, dkQh ugha gSA ¼izLrj 15½
(Oral: Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.)
This appeal, preferred under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.05.1999, passed bys Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 237 of 1995, whereby said court has convicted the three appellants Harbansh Singh, Harcharan Singh and Amarjeet Singh under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short I.P.C.), and each one of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-. Appellants are further convicted under section 323/34 and under Section 324/34 and each one of the appellant is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, under section 323/34 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under section 324/34 I.P.C.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.
3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19.03.1992 at about noon Amar Singh (deceased) was about to take his meals in his house situated in village Harayya, within the limits of Police Station Nanakmatta, when accused/appellants Harbansh Singh, Harcharan Singh @ Channi, Amarjeet Singh and one Jeet Singh armed with LATHIES and BALLAM (rod with sharp edged pointed blade at the end) came there. The accused/appellants told the deceased that since he has not allowed them to construct their house in the neighbourhood, they would finish him. Thereafter, all the three accused armed with LATHIES and BALLAM started assaulting Amar Singh. Jogendra Kaur (PW2) (wife of Amar Singh), and Munsha Singh (minor son of Amar Singh) came to save Amar Singh, along with complainant PW1 Sukhdev Singh (another minor son of Amar Singh). On which the accused assaulted them, and Jogendra Kaur (PW2) and Munsha Singh (PW5) also suffered injuries. Meanwhile, due to the alarm being raised, other persons from the neighbourhood rushed to the spot, and on seeing them accused ran away. Injured PW2 Jogendra Kaur and injured PW5 Munsha Singh went to Primary Health Centre, Sitarganj for medical treatment, and complainant PW1 Sukhdev Singh went to Police Station Nanakmatta to get lodged the First Information Report. He gave First Information Report (Ex. A1) at the Police Station at 15.10 hours, on the basis of which crime no. 42 of 1992, was registered relating to offences punishable under section 302 and 324 I.P.C. against the accused/appellants Harbansh Singh, Harcharan Singh, Amarjeet and one Jeet Singh . The investigation was taken up by PW7 Sub Inspector Ummed Ali. After the First Information Report was lodged, Police came to the spot and took dead body of Amar Singh in their possession, and prepared inquest report (Ex. A7), on the very day (19.03.1992). The Police further prepared sample seal (Ex. A-10), Police Form No. 13 (Ex. A-11), sketch of the dead body (Ex. A-12), and letter to Chief Medical Officer (Ex. A-8) for post mortem examination. The dead body was sent in a sealed condition for post mortem examination through PW6 Constable Surendra Sing. The post mortem examination was conducted on 20.03.1992, at 2.00 pm by PW4 Dr. N.S. Kanyal, who prepared autopsy report (Ex. A-4), and recorded as many as five ante mortem injuries. He opined that Amar Singh (deceased) had died due to shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. Meanwhile, the Investigating Officer interrogated the witnesses and prepared Site Plan (Ex. A-13), after inspection of the spot. The injuries on the persons of the other two injured person namely (Jogendra Kaur and Munsha Singh were recorded by PW3 Dr. Mahendra Singh of Primary Health Centre, Sitarganj, who prepared injuries reports (Ex. A-2) and (Ex. A-3) on 19.03.1992. The Investigating Officer arrested the accused, and recovered one BALLAM from accused Harbansh Singh and prepared memorandum of recovery (Ex. A-5). On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet (Ex. A-18
3. Narendra Kumar vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2010) 9 SCC 259
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.