Back
2019 Supreme(UK) 457
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Alok Singh, Ravindra Maithani, JJ.
Pradeep Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 489, 496 of 2013
Decided On : 02-12-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Prashant Khanna, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. V.K. Gemini, Deputy Advocate General
The main legal point established is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies and lack of evidence can lead to acquittal.
Headnote:
FIR - Criminal Law - Section 302/34 IPC - Summary: The court acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC based on inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's case, lack of evidence, and failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC for the death of the deceased Prem Singh, but the prosecution's case was based on contradictory statements and lack of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC.
Issues: Inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's case, lack of evidence, and failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that suspicion, no matter how grave, cannot be a basis for conviction, and highlighted the lack of corroboration and inconsistencies in witness statements.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment, and acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
1. Both the appeals are filed against the common judgment, therefore, they are disposed of together by this judgment.
2. Present appeals are preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.11.2013/13.11.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 29 of 2008, State Vs. Suraj Pal Singh and others by the court of District and Session Judge, Pauri Garhwal. In the Session Trial, nine accused were tried, except appellants all others have been acquitted. Appellants Suraj Pal Singh and Pradeep Singh have been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 25000/- each and in default, it has further been ordered that appellants shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
3. Facts necessary for disposal of the appeals are briefly stated as under:
(i) 15.03.2006 was the day of Holi festival. Deceased Prem Singh was in his house. His house was adjacent to the house of appellants Suraj Pal Singh and Pradeep Singh. Appellant Suraj Pal Singh was abusing deceased Prem Singh from his house. Both were abusing each other. Suddenly appellant Suraj Pal Singh pushed deceased Prem Singh. He fell down. His head hit on a large stone. He was lying there for about two hours. His wife Beena Devi tried to lift him but he was dead. Nobody came to help Beena Devi. In the evening, at about 04.00 p.m. mother of the deceased returned to her house. She was narrated the whole story by Beena Devi. On 16.03.2006 at about 02.00 – 03.00 p.m. the deceased was cremated by his mother. This matter was reported by Beena Devi, on 16.03.2006 at about 05.00 p.m. at Revenue Police Chowki, Indiakot, Malla 4, Lansdowne, District Pauri Garhwal. Chik FIR Exhibit A1 was prepared. A case under Section 302 read with 201 IPC was lodged against the appellant Suraj Pal Singh and others. Extract of General Diary is Exhibit A2. PW3 Yogamber Singh carried out the initial investigation. He prepared the site plan Exhibit A3. Subsequent to it, investigation was transferred to PW 5 Maharaj Singh, who recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared site plan Exhibit A 7.
(ii) Prosecution story, which was unfolded during trial, was different than what was reported by Beena Devi, to PW 3 Yogamber Singh. At trial, according to the Prosecution, on 15.03.2006, Suraj Pal Singh and deceased Prem Singh were quarrelling in the morning. At 02.00 p.m. on that day deceased Prem Singh was going to market to purchase Chappal for him. As soon as he reached at the house of Mangal Singh, appellant Suraj Pal Singh hit him with Khunkhari (a sharp edged weapon). Appellant Suraj Pal Singh gave further blows of Khunkhari at his feet. Meanwhile, PW1 Smt. Kusum Devi intervened. She snatched Khunkhari from the hands of appellant Suraj Pal Singh but meanwhile appellant Pradeep Singh took away Khunkhari from her and gave it again to appellant Suraj Pal Singh. Thereafter, appellant Suraj Pal Singh indiscriminately attacked deceased Prem Singh with Khunkhari. PW1 Kusum Devi felt unconscious. When her mother-in-law reached there, she narrated the entire story to her. Her mother-in-law took her back home. In this matter, after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against 11 persons by PW5 Maharaj Singh. It included appellants and nine other persons. Those nine persons include wife of deceased Beena Devi and mother of the deceased Kapotari Devi. Beena Devi did not appear during trial, therefore, her case was separated. One of the accused, Than Singh died, therefore, case against him stood abated on 05.10.2013. Charge under Section 302/34 IPC was levelled against the appellants. Other co-accused were charged for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. Prosecution examined five witnesses.
(iii). Appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to them, they have been falsely implicated. According to appellant Suraj Pal Singh, appellant Pradee
