Back
2013 Supreme(UK) 237
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Bist
KALAM SINGH ALIAS BHEERU & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2005
Decided on : 14.06.2013
For the Appellants :Ms. Gaura Devi Dev, Advocate/Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent:Mr. Vinod Sharma, Dy. Advocate General
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 302 r/w Sec. 34 and Sec. 323 r/w Sec. 34 and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Castes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sec. 3(2)(v) — Appreciation of evidences — PW1/injured eyewitness/star witness stated that on the day of incident accused-1 armed with LATHI and accused-2 armed with knife and other accused armed with stone assaulted his son in her presence — When she intervened to rescue her son, she was also assaulted by the three accused and she suffered injuries on her head — Her oral testimony was corroborated by the injury report of the deceased that injury No. 1, 5 and 6 were on the vital part of the body of the deceased and the deceased had died homicidal death — Thus, trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and concluded that charge against the accuseds that they committed murder of deceased with common intention and assaulted and voluntarily caused hurt to PW2 with common intention is proved beyond reasonable doubt — Since the deceased and PW2 were members of Scheduled Caste and the accused did not belong to the Scheduled Caste, the offence of murder of deceased committed by the accused was also, punishable r/w provision in Sec. 3(2)(v), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. (Paras 8, 12, 16)
Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 302 lifBr /kkjk 34 vkSj 323 lifBr /kkjk 34 vuqlwfpr tkfr vkSj vuqlwfpr tutkfr ¼vR;kpkj fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e 1989] /kkjk 3(2)(v) & lk{;ksa dh foospuk & PW1@izR;{k lk{kh@eq[; lk{kh }kjk dfFkr fd ?kVuk ds fnu vijk/k la- 1 ykBh ls] vijk/kh la- 2 pkdw ls o vU; vijk/kh iRFkjksa ls ySl Fks vkSj mUgksaus mldh mifLFkfr esa mlds csVs ij okj fd;k & vkSj tc mlus vius csVs dks cpkus ds fy, chp&cpko fd;k rc rhuksa nksf”k;ksa us ml ij Hkh okj fd, ftlls mlds flj esa pksVsa vkb± & mldh ekSf[kd lk{;rk dh iqf”V {kfr fjiksVZ ls gqbZ fd ?kko la- 1] 5 o 6 e`rd ds eeZ Hkkxksa ij Fks ftlls mldh e`R;q gks xbZ & fopkj.k vnkyr }kjk lk{;ksa dh mfpr foospuk dj Fkh & vfHk;qDrksa }kjk e`rd dh gR;k lkekU; vk’; ls dkfjr Fkh vkSj nksf”k;ksa us lkekU; vk’; o LosPNk ls ihfM+rk dks Hkh pksVsa igq¡pkbZ] ;g Hkh fu%lansg fl) pw¡fd e`rd o PW2 nksuksa vuqlwfpr tkfr ds lnL; Fks ijUrq nks”kh vuqlwfpr tkfr ds lnL; ugha Fks blfy, e`rd dh vfHk;qDrksa }kjk gR;k vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr ¼vR;kpkj fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1989 ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr Hkh n.Muh;A ¼izLrj 8] 12] 16½
Oral: Prafulla C. Pant, J.
This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, is directed against judgment and order dated 26.05.2005, passed by Special Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, New Tehri, in Special Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2000, whereby said court has convicted accused/appellants Kalam Singh @ Bheeru, Ranjeet @ Guddu and Raghu, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., under Section 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Castes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial court has sentenced each one of the convicts to imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- under section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and each one of them has been further sentenced to imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Castes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Heard Ms. Gaura Devi Dev, Advocate/Amicus Curie, for the appellants and Mr. Vinod Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, and perused the lower court record.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.10.1999, at about 6.00 am, accused/appellant No.2 Ranjeet Singh @ Guddu went to the house of Guna Lal (deceased) in Village Unnana, Patti Chandrabadni, and took him to his house (in the same village). When by 7.00 a.m. Guna Lal did not come back to his house, his wife PW2 Mana Devi went to the house of her mother in law PW1 Kidi Devi and told that her husband has not came back from the house of Ranjeet Singh. On this PW1 Kidi Devi (mother of the deceased) went to the house of Ranjeet Singh, where she saw that accused/appellant Ranjeet Singh @ Guddu armed with knife, accused/appellant Kalam Singh @ Bheeru armed with LATHI (stick) and accused/appellant Raghu armed with stone were assaulting Guna Lal. She immediately intervened and attempted to rescue her son, but she too was assaulted by the three accused. Whereafter, she fell down. Meanwhile, her daughter 3
in law PW2 Mana Devi and PW3 Manoj Kumar (son of the deceased Guna Lal and Mana Devi) reached to the house of Ranjeet Singh. The First Information Report (Ex. A3) of the incident was got lodged by PW1 Kidi Devi on the very day of the incident by submitting the same to Sub Divisional Magistrate of Kirti Nagar. On the basis of said report Crime No. 532 of 1999 was registered at Police Station Devprayag, at about 4.15 P.M. on 22.10.1999, in respect of offences punishable under Section 302 and 323 of I.P.C., against the three accused namely Kalam Singh @ Bheeru, Ranjeet Singh @ Guddu and Raghu. It was also mentioned in the First Information Report that Guna Lal (deceased) and Kidi Devi (PW1) were members of Scheduled Castes (The accused were Thakurs of the same village). After the report was lodged, Police went to Village Unnana and took the dead body of deceased Guna Lal in their possession on 23.10.1999, and prepared the inquest report (Ex. A6) and sealed the body. The Police also got prepared the sketch of the dead body (Ex. A7), Police Form No. 13 (Ex. A8), Sample seal (Ex. A9) and letter to Chief Medical Officer (Ex. A10) requesting for post mortem examination. PW5 Dr. S.K. Gupta conducted post mortem examination on 23.10.1999, at about 11.00 a.m. and prepared the autopsy report (Ex. A1), in which, he recorded as many as ten ante mortem injuries. Strangely, he opined that the cause of death could not be ascertained. It appears that on the request of the Superintendent of Police of District Tehri Garhwal, Chief Medical Officer, Tehri Garhwal constituted the committee of three Medical Officers to give its opinion on the basis of the 4
autopsy report, as to whether, the deceased had died a homicidal death and as to whether, it can be said that the injuries suffered by the deceased was sufficient to cause his death. In rep
