Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
U.C. Dhyani, J.
State of Uttaranchal - Appellant
versus
Deep Chand Joshi - Respondent
Government Appeal No. 2071 of 2001
Decided on : 27.8.2013
F.I.R. - Assault - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 325, 452, 506 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(3)(10)(15)
Fact of the Case:
An F.I.R. was lodged against the accused for offenses under IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The accused was charged and claimed trial. After trial, the accused was exonerated by the Special Sessions Judge, leading to a Government Appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The prosecution presented evidence through witnesses, but the court found discrepancies in the testimonies and lack of independent witnesses. The court noted the possibility of enmity between the parties and acquitted the accused, giving the benefit of reasonable doubt.
Issues: Discrepancies in testimonies, lack of independent witnesses, possibility of enmity between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: When two views are possible, the one in favor of the accused should be accepted. In this case, the court found discrepancies in the evidence and acquitted the accused, giving the benefit of reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The Government Appeal was dismissed, and the accused was acquitted.
1. An F.I.R. was lodged by PW1 Smt. Durga Devi, against accused-respondent Deep Chand Joshi and others on 21.12.1998 at 07:40 A.M., in P.S. Ramnagar, District Nainital for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 452, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(3)(10)(15) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. As per the complaint (Ext. Ka-1), on 20.12.1998 at 09:30 P.M., accused-respondent came to PW1’s house alongwith some other persons, who were armed with sticks, knife and country made pistol. Accused-respondent assaulted PW1 and PW2 with sticks, as a consequences of which, PW1 and PW2 sustained injuries. Accused-respondent also threatened them with dire consequences. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused for the selfsame offences. Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 452, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was framed against the accused-respondent, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2) PW1 Durga Devi, PW2 Bhupal Ram, PW3 Dr. S.D. Pant and PW4 Darshan Lal (C.O.) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that he was falsely implicated in this case on account of a dispute over a piece of land. He said that PW1 and PW2 wanted to forcibly took possession of a land which was adjacent to their house. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Special Sessions Judge exonerated the accused of the charge levelled against him, vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2001. Aggrieved against the same, present Government Appeal was preferred by the State.
3) Prosecution led the evidence through PW1. She said that accused-respondent was known to her prior to this incident. On the fateful day, at 9:00 P.M., when she was at her home, accused-respondent came alongwith some other miscreants, whose faces were veiled. They wanted to take possession of the land adjoining their house. When PW1 stopped them from doing the same, accused-respondent inflicted blows of sticks on PW1 and PW2. Both PW1 and PW2 sustained injuries. Accused-respondent alongwith others threatened PW1 and PW2 with dire consequences.
4) In her cross-examination, PW1 said that she was an illiterate lady. Accused-respondent did not cover his face. The report was got typed by her in Tehsil. Accused did not permit her to come out of her house till morning. Her clothes were stained with blood. Accused- respondent did not lodge report against her. She admitted in the cross examination that she had a dispute with accused-respondent over a piece of land. PW1 said that whereas she sustained injuries, PW2 sustained fracture. She did not inflict blow on accused- respondent in retaliation.
5) PW2 Bhupal Ram supported PW1 and said that accused-respondent lived 100 fts. away from his house. On 20.12.1998, at 09:30 P.M., accused- respondent brought chapper (thatch) in tractor-trolley. He was accompanied by several persons. PW1 stopped him from doing so. Accused-respondent pushed PW1 and assaulted her. Accused-respondent also assaulted PW2 with sticks, as a consequence of which, PW2 sustained fracture on his left hand. Accused-respondent said that he was a Ward Member and if PW2 dared to lodge report against him, he would have to face the consequences. Accused persons went away at 07:00 A.M. PW2 went to the police in the morning. The police removed the chapper.
6) In his cross-examination, PW2 said that disputed land was Nazul land. He gave the description of the disputed land. Many other questions were asked to PW2 in the cross-examination. PW2 further said that accused respondent gave 3-4 blows of sticks each on PW1 and PW2. Accused persons stopped PW1 and PW2 in the night from approaching police.
7) The incident allegedly took place on 20.12.1998 in the nigh
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
