Back
2022 Supreme(UK) 155
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Kulwant Singh and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2005
Decided On : 12-05-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pulak Agarwal.
For the Respondents: Mr. Lalit Miglani, Ms. Sonika Khulbe.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on witness statements, medical reports, and inquest reports to establish guilt under IPC 304 Part-II, and the consideration of various factors before sentencing the appellant.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Assault - IPC 302, 504, 304 Part-II - [ASSAULT] - [CRIMINAL LAW] - [IPC 302, IPC 504, IPC 304 Part-II] - The court acquitted the appellants of the charge under IPC 302 and IPC 504 but convicted them under IPC 304 Part-II. The judgment discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution, including eyewitness testimonies, medical reports, and inquest reports, to establish the guilt of the appellants under IPC 304 Part-II. The court also considered the nature of the offense, the socio-economic condition of the appellant, and other factors before sentencing the appellant to five years of imprisonment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants borrowed a bicycle and when it was not returned, the informant and his wife went to retrieve it. They were abused and thrashed by the appellants and others. The son of the informant tried to rescue him but was beaten to death by the appellants and others.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty under IPC 304 Part-II based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, including eyewitness testimonies, medical reports, and inquest reports. The court considered the nature of the offense, the socio-economic condition of the appellant, and other factors before sentencing the appellant to five years of imprisonment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and medical reports, and the appropriate sentencing for the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the totality of witness statements, medical reports, and inquest reports to establish the guilt of the appellants under IPC 304 Part-II. The court also considered the nature of the offense, the socio-economic condition of the appellant, and other factors before sentencing the appellant to five years of imprisonment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upheld the conviction under IPC 304 Part-II, and sentenced the appellant to five years of imprisonment.
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
1. Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.09.2005/03.10.2005, passed in Sessions Trial No. 105 of 1994, State vs. Kulwant Singh and Others, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/2nd FTC, Nainital. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants have been acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with 34 and Section 504 read with 34 IPC. But, they have been convicted under Section 304 Part-II read with 34 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.
2. Facts briefly stated are as follows. On 11.11.1993, the appellants and others had borrowed a bicycle of Pritam Singh (“the informant”). When the bicycle was not returned, the informant alongwith his wife went to get their bicycle in the house of the appellants and others. The bicycle was not returned, instead the informant was abused and thrashed. Hearing the alarm, the son of the informant Gurmeet Singh came at the spot. He tried to rescue the informant. But, he was beaten up with lathi and danda by the appellants and others, due to which, Gurmeet Singh died at the spot. A report of the incident was lodged by the father of the deceased Pritam Singh, the informant on the same day at 4:10 P.M. Based on which, a case under Sections 302, 323, 504 IPC was registered. The inquest of the deceased was conducted on the same day. According to the witness to the inquest, the death occurred due to attack made by the appellants and others with lathi and danda. The post mortem of the deceased Gurmeet Singh was conducted on 12.11.1993.
3. After investigation, charge sheet under Sections 302, 323 and 504 IPC was submitted against the appellants and others. On 29.07.1995, charge under Section 302 read with 34 and Section 504 read with 34 IPC was framed, to which, the appellants and co-accused denied and claimed trial.
4. The appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They have stated that they did not commit any offence and they are innocent.
5. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined in all five witnesses, namely, PW-1 Dr. Anil Chandra Shah, who conducted post-mortem of the deceased, PW-2 Pritam Singh, the informant, PW-3 Joginder Kaur, mother of the deceased, PW-4 Kashmir Singh and PW-5 Diwan Giri, the Investigating Officer (“IO”).
6. Co-accused Suren Singh died during the pendency of the trial and the case was abated against him. One of the co-accused Satnam Singh did not appear in the trial. Therefore, his case was separated and the trial proceeded against the appellants Kulwant Singh and Channa Singh. The appellant no. 2 Channa Singh died during the pendency of this appeal and by an order dated 14.09.2020 passed by this Court, the appeal abated against him. The appeal is now to be determined qua the appellant Kulwant Singh.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. PW-2 Pritam Singh is the informant, who is an interested witness. PW-3 Joginder Kaur is the mother of the deceased. She is also an interested witness. It is also argued that certain independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, therefore, the appellant deserve to be acquitted of the charge.
9. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that PW-2 Pritam Singh and PW-3 Joginder Kaur are the eyewitnesses of the incident. They have supported the prosecution case. PW-4 Kashmir Singh has also supported the prosecution case. The medical report supports the prosecution case. Therefore, prosecution has been able to make out a case against the appellant and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
10. PW-1 Dr. Anil Chandra Shah is the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. He has
