Back
2017 Supreme(UK) 591
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
RAJIV SHARMA, SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, JJ.
UMA SHANKAR PANDEY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 2015
Decided on : 29-06-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate.
For the State :Mr. Nandan Arya, Deputy Advocate General.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving serious offenses such as murder.
Headnote:
IPC - Offences against the person - Section 302, 504, 506 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the prosecution's case under Section 302, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The key legal provisions of these sections were interpreted in the context of the evidence presented and influenced the court's decision to set aside the judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for offenses under Section 302, 504, and 506 of IPC based on the prosecution's case that he attacked and killed the deceased with a pickaxe. The prosecution's evidence included witness testimonies and postmortem examination reports.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the witness testimonies and the prosecution's case, including variations in the timing of events and lack of blood evidence on the alleged weapon of offense. As a result, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the presence of the accused at the scene, and the lack of conclusive evidence linking the accused to the alleged offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was primarily influenced by the discrepancies in witness testimonies, lack of blood evidence on the alleged weapon, and the failure of the prosecution to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment convicting the appellant was set aside. The appellant was ordered to be released from jail.
RAJIV SHARMA, J.
1. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 06.06.2015 rendered by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No.95 of 2012, whereby the appellant-accused, who was charged with and tried for the offences under Section 302, 504 and 506 of IPC, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. He was further sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment under Section 504 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. He was further sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment under Section 506 of IPC and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple 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 PW 1 Chandrabhan has lodged the FIR on 13.04.2012. According to the contents of the FIR, he was selling sugarcane juice on his cart. The accused-Uma Shankar Pandey was also selling tea near his cart. Uma Shankar Pandey bore a grudge against him. On 12.04.2012 at about 06:30 PM, the accused went to the cart of PW 1 Chandrabhan and started abusing his servant namely Surendra Kashyap. The accused inquired about him. The accused called him on telephone and told that he would kill the person who was working with him and if he wants to save him, he should come on the spot. He reached on the spot immediately. He saw that Uma Shankar Pandey has given blow with pickaxe (Gainti) on the head of Surendra Kashyap. Surendra Kashyap collapsed. Blood oozed from his wounds. He was taken to hospital in 108 Ambulance. Thereafter, he was referred to CMI Hospital. Uma Shankar Pandey advanced the threat to kill him and his family. Thereafter, FIR was registered. The investigation was carried out. The pickaxe was also taken into possession. The body was sent for postmortem examination. In the postmortem examination, the cause of death was opined to be head injury leading to excessive bleeding in the brain and cardio respiratory failure. The prosecution has examined numbers of witnesses. The statement of accused was also recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 He denied the case of the prosecution. The accused was convicted and sentenced, as noticed here-in-above.
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 dated 06.06.2015.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment carefully.
5. PW 1 Chandrabhan has testified that he was selling sugarcane juice on his cart. The accused was bearing a grudge against him. On 12.04.2012, at about 06:15- 6:30 PM the accused started abusing Surendra Kashyap and asked him to call his employer. The accused also rang him and told that he was killing Surendra Kashyap and if he wants to save him, he should come on the spot. He reached on the spot within 5-7 minutes. When he was crossing the road, the accused gave a blow of pickaxe (Gainti) on the head of Surendra Kashyap. Surendra Kashyap collapsed on the spot. The accused ran away from the spot. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Surendra Kashyap along with other persons namely Shyam, Sanawar and Javed were working on his other counters. He lodged the FIR at 09:15 PM on 13.04.2012. He also deposed in his cross-examination that 10-12 people were present on the spot.
6. PW 2 Dr. Parag Singhal has conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Surendra Kashyap. According to him, the deceased died due to ante mortem injuries. According to him, injuries could be caused with pick-axe or stick.
7. PW 3 Mahavir Singh has deposed that on 12.04.2012 between
