Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(UK) 181

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Bhupendra Singh and others – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 102 of 2011
Decided on : 19-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Maneesh Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vipul Sharma,
Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. V.K. Jemini, Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate

The prosecution's failure to explain injuries on the accused and its impact on the case's credibility.

Headnote:
Injuries - Criminal Assault - Sections 323, 506 IPC - [Sections 323, 506 IPC] - The court discussed the prosecution's failure to explain the injuries on the accused, the importance of non-explanation of injuries, and the impact on the prosecution's case. The court upheld the conviction under Section 323 IPC but modified the sentence to release the accused on probation.
Fact of the Case:

On 10.02.2008, the revisionists assaulted the victim and his family, leading to their conviction under Sections 323 IPC. The revisionists claimed trial and challenged the prosecution's evidence.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and upheld the conviction under Section 323 IPC. However, it modified the sentence to release the revisionists on probation.
Issues: The key issue was the prosecution's failure to explain the injuries on the accused and the revisionists' claim of being falsely implicated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of explaining injuries on the accused and its impact on the prosecution's case. It also considered the lack of defense version regarding the injuries sustained by the accused.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction under Section 323 IPC but modified the sentence to release the revisionists on probation for 6 months.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

By means of the instant revision, the following judgment and orders are to put to challenge:-

(A) Judgment and order dated 08.12.2010, passed in Criminal Case No.1481 of 2008, State Vs. Bhupendra Singh and others, by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist have been convicted under Sections 323 IPC and sentenced to six months imprisonment and,

(B) Judgment and order dated 16.05.2011, passed in Criminal Appeal No.196 of 2010, Bhupendra Singh and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/IInd F.T.C. Udham Singh Nagar (for short, “the appeal”) which confirmed the order passed in the case.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows. On 10.02.2008, at about 10 AM, PW1 Ganpath was assaulted by the revisionists armed with lathi-danda, sword, etc. and attacked, due to which, he became unconscious and fell on the ground. The wife and daughter of PW1 Ganpath were also assaulted and attacked. A report of the incident was given on 11.02.2008 at 09:45 PM by PW2 Ganga Sagar. Based on which, a Case Crime No.287 of 2008, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 506 IPC was lodged. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionists namely, Bhupendra Singh, Jitendra Singh and Vinod Singh. Subsequently, during trial other revisionists, namely Ranvijay Singh, Dhruv Singh and Bhim Singh were also summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) to face trial along with the existing accused. On 05.12.2012, charge under Sections 323, 506 IPC was levelled against the revisionists Ranvijay Singh, Dhruv Singh and Bhim Singh and on 17.10.2008, charge under Sections 323, 506 IPC was framed against Bhupendra Singh, Jitendra Singh and Vinod Singh. They have denied the charge and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined five witnesses namely, PW1 Ganpath, PW2 Ganga Sagar, the informant, who is one of the victim, PW3 Dr. Shalini Sharma, PW4, the Investigating Officer Sub-Inspector T.S. Khati and PW5 Sumit Kumar.

5. The revisionists were examined under Section 313 of the Code. They denied the prosecution evidence. In defence DW1 Dr. Dheer Singh has been examined. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order dated 08.12.2010, passed in the case, all the revisionists have been convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to six months imprisonment. The order dated 08.12.2010, passed in the case, has been unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that the court below did not take into consideration the important piece of evidence. Reference has been made to the statement of PW3 Dr. Shalini Sharma, who on 25.05.2010, proved that on 10.02.2008, she also medically examined the revisionists Bhupendra Singh and Jitendra Singh and found injuries on their person. It is argued that the prosecution has not explained those injuries.

7. It is submitted that, in fact, the dispute was with the revisionists Bhupendra Singh and Jitendra Singh only and other revisionists have been falsely implicated. It was a free fight, in which, the victim Ganpath sustained injuries. Apart from it, it is also argued that Vinod Singh and Bhim Singh were working at their place of job at the date of incident. But, this plea was wrongly not accepted by the court below.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the informant would submit that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no reason to make any interference in this revision.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that in appeal, on behalf of the revisionists Jitendra Singh and Bhupendra Singh, it is argued that they were in jail at the time of incident, hence, they were falsely implicated whereas, in this Court, it i