Back
2012 Supreme(UK) 236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Barin Ghosh & U.C. Dhyani, JJ.
Bhuwan Singh ……. Appellant
versus
State of Uttarakhand ………. Opposite Party
Criminal Appeal No. 277 of 2006
Decided On : June 21, 2012
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. U.S.Bhakuni, Amicus Curiae for the appellant.
Mr. Amit Bhatt, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on last seen evidence and the failure of the accused to discharge his obligation under section 114 of the Evidence Act.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Kidnapping, Rape, and Murder - Sections 363, 366, 376, 302, 201 IPC - The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant Bhuwan Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 302, and 201 IPC. The judgment does not warrant any interference, and the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
A First Information Report was lodged alleging that the accused kidnapped, raped, and murdered a three-year-old girl. The accused was found guilty by the trial court and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life as regards the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, ten years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, three years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC, and five years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant Bhuwan Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 302, and 201 IPC. The judgment does not warrant any interference, and the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the guilt of the accused appellant for the offences of kidnapping, rape, and murder, as well as the admissibility and credibility of witness testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the prosecution had adduced three independent witnesses who saw the victim last in the company of the accused-appellant, and the mother of the deceased also saw the victim and accused together. The court held that the accused failed to discharge his obligation under section 114 of the Evidence Act and that there was no reason to fathom that the accused-appellant was falsely trapped on account of non-existing enmity with anybody.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant Bhuwan Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 302, and 201 IPC. The appeal of the appellant was dismissed, and the judgment and order passed by the trial court were affirmed.
Per: U.C. Dhyani, J.
A First Information Report (Ext. Ka-1) was lodged by the informant Lakshman Singh on 12.11.2004 at 9:30 am at Police Station Gadarpur District Udham Singh Nagar alleging that while his daughter Km. Vandana, aged about three years, was playing along with other children of the village at kharanja in front of his house at 6:30 pm, Bhuwan Singh son of Pancham Singh r/o of village Sethwala carried her towards the river. While carrying the girl child in his lap, he was seen by the villagers Preetam Singh, Radholi Devi and Smt. Premwati. Informant Lakshman Singh had gone somewhere for some work at that time. When he came back at home his wife Shimlo Devi told him about the incident and also said that Vandana (victim) had not come at home by then. The informant with the help his family members and villagers searched his daughter Vandana in night but she could not be traced. On 12.11.2004 again the informant with the help of his family and villagers started searching his daughter. At around 8:00 am the dead body of his daughter was found in half naked condition on the grass on the bank of river Nakatiya near the field of Krishna Singh. Bhuwan Singh killed his daughter after committing rape with her.
2. On the basis of complaint (Ext. Ka-1) of Lakshman Singh, chik FIR (Ext. Ka-10) was lodged at PS Gadarpur district Udham Singh Nagar on 12.11.2004 at 9:30 pm. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was 4 kilometers and hence, there appeared to be no delay in lodging the First Information Report, registered in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 302 and 201 IPC.
3. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused appellant Bhuwan Singh as regards offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 302 and 201 IPC. Trial began. Charges were framed against the accused-appellant Bhuwan Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 302 and 201 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As many as 14 prosecution witnesses were examined. Statement of accused appellant Bhuwan Singh under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was taken in which he stated that complainant lodged a false report in connivance with one Preetam Singh. He had a scuffle with Preetam Singh in which he (Preetam Singh) had threatened that he will involve accused-appellant in a false case. Accused appellant did not adduce any evidence in defence.
4. After conclusion of the trial, learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar held accused-appellant Bhuwan Singh guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 302 IPC. He was awarded rigorous imprisonment for life as regards the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, ten years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, three years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC and five years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, present appeal was preferred by the accused appellant Bhuwan Singh.
5. PW 3 Preetam Singh, PW 6 Radholi Devi and PW 11 Smt. Premwati were three witnesses who saw victim last in the company of accused-appellant. They are the most important witnesses, if the prosecution case is to succeed. Let us have a detailed look at the evidence of these witnesses one by one.
6. PW 3 Preetam Singh said in his examination-in-chief that on 11.11.2004 when he was coming from his residence at 6:30 pm, he saw accused-appellant Bhuwan Singh standing outside the house of Lakshman Singh. Bhuwan Singh used to come to his village quite often. Accused-appellant was having victim, aged about 3-4 years, in his lap. Thereafter he was seen taking the victim towards Nakatia river. PW 6 Radholi Devi and PW 11 Premwati also saw the same. Later on he came to know that victim Vandana was missing. V
