Back
2012 Supreme(UK) 260
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Barin Ghosh and U.C. Dhyani
Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 2003
RAVINDRA ALIAS ADDU & TWO ORS. – Appellants
Versus
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL – Respondent
Decided on : 28.06.2012
For the Appellant No. 1 : Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Adv. with Mr. K.S. Rawal, Adv.
For the Appellant No. 3 : Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal and Mr. H.C. Joshi, Advs.
For the State : Mr. Amit Bhatt, Dy. Adv. General assisted by Mr. V.P. Bahuguna, Brief Holder
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 302 r/w Sec. 34 and Sec. 323 r/w Sec. 34 — Offence punishable under — Conviction and sentence for — In the present incident, one victim died and three persons received injuries — The witnesses never said that those three persons did not suffer injuries — The date, occasion and time of assault was almost the same — But, if there were multiple abraded contusions on upper half of back of victim, the same was not likely to cause death of a person in normal circumstances — When medical report proved that the deceased succumbed to his injuries on account of stab wound caused with a knife on his chest and not because of abraded contusion on his back — But, here knife was neither ascribed to appellant no. 1 nor to appellant no. 3 — It was the injury no. (i) sustained by deceased which was fatal — According to PW1, the injured persons sustained simple injuries of lathis only — Deceased also sustained injuries of lathi on his back — And appellant no. 1 had only lathi in his hands — Thus, he caused simple hurt and an offence punishable u/s 323 r/w Sec. 34, IPC only established against him — Also, that appellant no. 1 did not use knife as the same was ascribed to accused 2/non-appellant — Hence, appellant no. 1 could not be held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 302 r/w Sec 34, IPC — Further that khukhri was present in the hands of appellant no. 3 — But there was no evidence that such dagger was used and no overt act on the part of appellant no. 3 — Hence appellant no. 3 goes out — No case was made out against him, so he could neither be held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 302 r/w Sec 34 of IPC nor for the offence punishable u/s 323 r/w Sec 34 of IPC — Accordingly, conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against accused/appellant no. 1 and 3 u/s 302 r/w Sec 34, IPC, set aside. (Paras 23 to 26)
Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 302 lifBr /kkjk 34 vkSj /kkjk 323 lifBr /kkjk 34 & rgr n.Muh; vijk/k & izLrqr ?kVuk esa ,d ihfM+r dh e`R;q gks xbZ o rhu yksx ?kk;y gks x, & lk{;ksa us ;g dHkh ugha ekuk fd oks rhu yksx ?kk;y ugha gq, Fks & geys dk fnu] volj o le; ,d gh Fks & vxj e`rd ds ‘kjhj ds Åijh Hkkx ij vi?kf”kZr pksV ds fu’kku Fks] rc ekewyh ifjfLFkfr esa mu pksVksa ls fdlh dh e`R;q ugha gks ldrh & fpfdRlk fjiksVZ ls lkQ gks x;k fd e`rd dh e`R;q Nkrh esa yxs pkdw dh pksV ls gqbZ gS u fd vi?kf”kZr pksVksa dh otg ls & ijUrq ;gk¡ pkdw u rks vihykFkhZ ua- 1 u gh vihykFkhZ ua- 3 ds ikl gksuk crk;k x;k & ;g pksV la- 1 gh Fkh tks e`rd ds fy, ?kkrd Fkh & PW1 ds vuqlkj ?kk;y O;fDr;ksa dks ykBh ls dkfjr ekewyh pksVsa vkb± Fkha & e`rd dh ihB ij Hkh ykBh ds fu’kku ik, x, & vkSj vihykFkhZ ua- 1 ds gkFk esa ykBh Fkh] ftlls mlus ekewyh pksVsa dkfjr dh bl izdkj mldk vijk/k n.Muh; u/s 323 r/w Sec. 34 IPC & pw¡fd vihykFkhZ ds gkFk esa pkdw ugha Fkk mls u/s 302 r/w Sec. 34 IPC ls eqDr fd;k x;k & ;g Hkh ik;k x;k fd vihykFkhZ ua- 3 ds gkFk esa [kq[kjh Fkh ftldk mi;ksx gqvk] ,slk dksbZ lk{; ugha & blfy, vihykFkhZ ua- 3 dks nks”keqDr fd;k x;kA ¼izLrj 23 ls 26½
Per: U.C. Dhyani, J.
In the present criminal appeal, criminal law was set into motion at the instance of informant Devendra Kumar s/o late Sohan Lal, resident of Haripur Nawada, falling within the jurisdiction of police station Clement Town, District Dehradun. He lodged a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) enumerating the facts therein that on 29.04.2002 at 06:30 P.M., he proceeded on bicycle for a ride. When he reached Tilwadi diversion, he found that his brother Santosh, brother’s friends Paras, Badal, Rajesh and Mukesh, all residents of Nawada came running in front of Mehar Singh’s house. They were being chased by Ravindra alias Addu s/o Mahohar, Digambar s/o Padam, Jaipal s/o Phool Chand and Sunil s/o Nand Lal, all residents of Majri Mafi. They were armed with khukhri (dagger), knife and sticks. They were also abusing Santosh and others. Santosh, Badal, Paras, Mukesh and Rajesh were surrounded by the accused/appellants no sooner they reached the field. Accused/appellant Jaipal inflicted a blow of knife on the chest of Santosh with the intention of killing him. Co-accused Sunil was armed with khukhri (dagger). Digambar was having a stick. They alongwith Ravindra alias Addu beat Rajesh, Mukesh, Paras and Badal. When the informant Devendra Kumar along with Om Prakash tried to save the victims, accused/appellants fled away from the place of occurrence. Santosh was bleeding profusely. When he was being taken to hospital, he succumbed to the injuries received by him. The incident took place as a repercussion of altercation which took place between them on 27.04.2002 in the marriage ceremony of one Arjun. Accused / appellants threatened the injured persons with dire consequences. Dead body of Santosh was kept in Asha Nursing Home.
2. On the basis of said complaint, chick FIR (Ext. Ka-9) was lodged by the police on 29.04.2002 at 07:30 P.M. Police registered Case Crime No. 37 of 2002 against accused Ravindra alias Addu, Digambar, Jaipal and Sunil in respect of offences punishable under Section 302, 323 and 504 of IPC. The occurrence took place on the same day i.e. 29.04.2002, at 06:30 P.M. The distance between the place of occurrence and police station concerned was 20 Km. Hence, there appears to be no delay in lodging the FIR. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka-8) against four accused persons in respect of offences punishable under Section 302, 323, 504 of IPC.
3. Trial began before learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Charges against accused Ravindra alias Addu, Digambar, Jaipal and Sunil were framed relating to offences punishable under Section 302/34, 323/34 and 504/34 of IPC, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses, viz., P.W.1 Devendra Kumar, P.W.2 Paras, P.W.3 Manoj Kumar, P.W.4 Mukesh Thapa, P.W.5 Rajesh Kala, P.W.6 Dr. K.B. Joshi, P.W.7 Om Prakash Thapa, P.W.8 S.I. Chandan Singh Bisht, P.W.9 Constable Hira Singh and P.W.10 Dr. S.S. Tolia. All the evidence was put to accused persons. Statements of the accused/appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they said the evidence against them was false. They also pleaded that Devendra (brother of deceased) tendered evidence against them because of enmity. No evidence was adduced in defence.
4. After considering the evidence on record, trial court held the accused/appellants Ravindra alias Addu, Jaipal and Sunil guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and one punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. Each one of the convict was sentenced to imprisonment for life in respect of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Each one of the convict was also sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three months in respect of offence punishable under Section 323/34 of IPC. It was directed by the trial court that in default of payment of fine, the convicts shall further un
