Back
2017 Supreme(UK) 348
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Rajiv Sharma, Sharad Kumar Sharma, JJ.
Basant @ Chotu – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2013
Decided On : 12-10-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Bhatt, Dy.A.G.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including establishing the defendant's presence at the crime scene, providing credible evidence, and establishing a clear motive for the crime.
Headnote:
Section 302 IPC - Murder - Section 25 of the Arms Act - [302 IPC, 25 Arms Act] - The court acquitted the appellant of charges of murder and arms act violations due to lack of evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The court highlighted the lack of proof of the appellant's presence at the crime scene, inconsistencies in witness statements, and the failure to establish a motive for the crime.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was charged with murder and arms act violations based on the prosecution's case that he shot and killed the victim. The prosecution presented witness testimonies and evidence from the crime scene to support their case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It highlighted inconsistencies in witness statements, lack of evidence linking the appellant to the crime scene, and the failure to establish a clear motive for the crime.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the presence of the appellant at the crime scene, and the establishment of a motive for the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of credible evidence linking the appellant to the crime, inconsistencies in witness statements, and the failure to establish a clear motive for the crime. These factors led the court to acquit the appellant of all charges.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant of all charges, set aside the previous judgment, and allowed the appellant to remain on bail without the need to surrender.
Rajiv Sharma, J.
This appeal is instituted against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2012, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani Nainital in Sessions Trial No.29 of 2009 and Sessions Trial No.31 of 2009, whereby the appellant, was charged with and tried for the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to under additional imprisonment for a period of one year. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 25 of the Arms Act and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of one month. All the sentences imposed under the aforesaid sections were directed to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that PW1 Umesh Kumar lodged a report on 16.09.2008 to the effect that his father was coming from Ranibhag towards Kathgodam at about 06:15 PM. The road near Gulabghati was damaged. He got down from the motorcycle to urinate. In the meantime, two persons came on motorcycle. One was the son of his uncle, who was a pillion rider. The second person was wearing helmet. Basant fired two gunshots at his father and he pushed down the father of PW1 Umesh Kumar along with the motorcycle in a ditch. The appellant ran away from the spot. He raised the alarm. After sometime, 108 Ambulance also came and he took his father to Haldwani Base Hospital. He was declared dead. The body was sent for postmortem examination. The postmortem was conducted. According to postmortem examination, the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury to brain, lungs and liver due to fire arm bullet injury. The FIR was registered and the investigation was carried out and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. The prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses in its support. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He has denied the case of the prosecution. He has cited two witnesses in support of its case. The appellant was convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Learned counsel on behalf of the State has supported the judgment and order dated 12.12.2012.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment and record very carefully.
5. PW1 Umesh Kumar has deposed that the appellant was his uncle’s son. His father was a businessman. The business was good. The appellant was jealous of it. On 16.09.2008, at about 06:15 PM, he along with his father has dropped the straw. He along with his father was coming towards Haldwani on motorcycle. He got down to urinate. His father was standing near the motorcycle. When he started urinating, he heard the noise of gunshot. He turned back. Motorcycle was driven by one person wearing helmet. He could not recognize him. Basant came down and fired two gunshots at his father. His father collapsed. Basant pushed his father along with motorcycle in the ditch. He started shouting. The appellant ran away from the spot. Somebody summoned 108 Ambulance. He took his father to Haldwani Base Hospital, where he was declared dead. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there was police station at Kathgodam while going towards Haldwani. Ambulance had come at 06:30 PM. He has denied the suggestion that he was not present on the spot. He has further deposed that there three gunshots were fired. He informed one Narayan Singh on his mobile. He has admitted that he has mentioned only two gunshots to Narayan Singh, since he has seen only two gunshots being fired.
6. PW2 Dr. C.P. Bhaisoda has conducted the postmortem examination. He has noticed three e
