Back
2012 Supreme(UK) 263
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Servesh Kumar Gupta
Criminal Appeal No. 1503/2001
(Old No. 310/1999)
IMRAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. – Respondent
Decided on : 29.06.2012
For the Appellant :Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate
For the State :Mr. D.K. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General (Criminal)
Headnote:(A) Minor discrepancies — Any minor discrepancy in the statement of witnesses are not significant and lends no support to the accused/appellant — Held that discrepancies in evidence may render credential to the depositions — Parrot like statements are disfavoured by the Courts — Mere congruity or consistency in the depositions is not the sole test of truth. (Para 15)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 325 — Charges of offence under — Punishment for — Non examination of all the witnesses by the prosecution — No substance — Held that the prosecution story cannot be thrown out merely on the basis that some witnesses could not be produced by the prosecution because it is not essential to examine each and every witness present at the spot when the case of prosecution is already proved by other witnesses examined by it — In the present case, the ocular version of the prosecution is corroborated by the medical evidence — FIR also being prompt — Moreover, an independent eyewitness corroborated the prosecution story — Thus, the guilt of accused is proved — No interference. (Paras 16, 18)
(C) Sentence — Quantum of — Plea for reduction — Considering the fact that the incident is more than 17 years old and the accused/ appellant is about 60 years old — Punishment of three years’ rigorous imprisonment reduced to two years. (Para 19)
¼v½ lw{e vfu;feÙkrk,¡ & lk{;ksa ds dFkuksa esa ekewyh vfu;feÙkrk vFkZiw.kZ ugha vkSj og vfHk;qDr@vihykFkhZ dks leFkZu ugha nsrh & lk{;ksa esa vfu;ferrk izLrqr djrh gS] fo’okl i= vfHklk{; dks & jVs gq, dFku vnkyr }kjk vuqxzfgr ugha & flQZ vfHklk{; esa vuqdwyrk lR; dk izek.k ughaA ¼izLrj 15½
¼c½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 325 & vkjksi vkSj n.M & vfHk;kstu }kjk lHkh lk{;ksa dk ijh{k.k djuk] egRoiw.kZ ugha & ;g vko’;d ugha fd ?kVuk LFky ij mifLFkr gj ,d lk{; dk ijh{k.k fd;k tk, tcfd vfHk;kstu dk okn igys gh lkfcr gks pqdk gS nwljs lk{;ksa ds ijh{k.k ls & izLrqr okn esa lk{;ksa dh iqf”V fpfdRlk lk{;ksa ls Hkh gks xbZ Fkh & FIR Hkh le; ij ntZ djkbZ xbZ & vkSj ,d Lora= lk{; us vfHk;kstu dh dgkuh dks fl) fd;k & vijk/kh dk nks”k fl) & dksbZ gLr{ksi ughaA
¼izLrj 16] 18½
¼l½ ltk dk ifjek.k & ltk de djus ds fy, vfHkopu & rF; ij fopkj fd;k x;k fd ?kVuk 17 o”kZ iqjkuh gS o vfHk;qDr@vihykFkhZ dh vk;q 60 o”kZ gS blfy, rhu o”kZ ds dfBu dkjkokl dks ?kVkdj nks o”kZ fd;k x;kA ¼izLrj 19½
Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 4.2.1999, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (E.C. Act), Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 294/1995, State v. Imran. Accused appellant Imran was tried for the offence of Section 308 IPC pertaining to PS Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, but after conclusion of trial, instead of Section 308 IPC, accused was convicted for the offence of Section 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of rupees one thousand. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo two months’ simple imprisonment.
2. Facts, in brief, are that the accused and the complainant are next-door neighbours. Their respective houses are separated just by a 4 feet high wall. It has been averred in the FIR Ex. A-1 that on 30.5.1995, Smt. Bala Devi, mother of informant Rakesh Kumar, was washing clothes in the backyard of her house. The accused appellant Imran was lecherously staring at his mother. He also threw a bone covered by flesh in his house. Consequently, altercations began between the informant Rakesh Kumar and his mother on the one hand and the accused Imran on the other. On the intervention of the neighbours, namely, Gurbachan Singh, owner of Sardar Hotel Khalsa Dhaba, and Bhagat Singh, the dispute, arisen out on account of throwing of the bone, could be amicably settled between the parties. Earlier too, Imran had thrown bones on many occasions in the house of the informant. It was further averred that the accused Imran also threatened Shivcharan (father of informant) that he would teach him a lesson by the evening of that day itself and also held out a threat to kill him.
3. It was also alleged that on the date of incident i.e. on 30.5.1995 at 10 pm, when Rakesh along with his father Shivcharan were going somewhere in connection with their business, Imran, armed with a “danda” (baton), came in their way and began to assault Shivcharan with intention to kill him. As a result of the assault by Imran, the right leg of Shivcharan got fractured and he suffered injuries on many parts of his body. Blood started oozing out from the injuries. Consequently, his father became unconscious at the spot. Many persons came at the spot. So, Imran escaped from the scene of crime. Mr. Rakesh immediately rushed to the nearby police outpost at Dakpathar and lodged the report. The chick report is Ex. A-3.
4. The investigation commenced and the police recovered the baton which was the weapon used by the accused for assaulting Shivcharan. Recovery memo is Ex. A-5. Police also took into possession the bloodstained clothes of the injured and prepared recovery memo Ex. A-2. After completion of the investigation, police submitted the chargesheet against Imran for the offences under Section 308, 325, 506 IPC. Police also got Shivcharan (injured) examined in Doon Hospital, Dehradun in the intervening night of 30/31.5.1995 at 12.20 am, where he was medically examined by PW6 Dr. S.K. Nautiyal, who also prepared the medical report Ex. A-7. Following injures were found on his body:
(i) Lacerated wound 4 cm x 2 cm muscle deep in the left side of forehead, little above eyebrow. Fresh bleeding was present.
(ii) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm muscle deep on the dorsal side of left arm, 5 cm below the elbow joint.
(iii) Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm scalp deep on the left side of head, 4 cm above the left ear.
(iv) Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm bone deep in right leg, 11 cm below the knee, swelling was present all around this injury in the area of 16 cm x 28 cm.
(v) Abraded contusion reddish in colour with swelling 11 cm x 16 cm on the dorsal side of right arm, beneath the right elbow.
(vi) Injured also complained of pain in chest.
Injury no. (i), (iii), (iv), (v) & (vi) were kept under observation and x-ray was advised.
5. X-ray was done by PW5 Dr. B.C. Ramola, Radiologist and he has also proved
