Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(UK) 501

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, PANKAJ PUROHIT, JJ.
Anup Chand and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2013
Decided On : 19-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Pushpa Joshi, Chetna Latwal, Nipushmola Joshi.
For the Respondents: J.S. Virk, Rakesh Joshi.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on eyewitness accounts and medical evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, despite any defects in the investigation.

Headnote:
Section 302 IPC - Conviction challenged under Section 374 read with Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the evidence and arguments presented under Section 302 IPC and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC for the murder of the informant's son. The appellants were found guilty based on the eyewitness account of the informant and his wife, as well as the medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had successfully proven its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The lacuna in the investigation was not deemed significant enough to undermine the eyewitness accounts, and the court affirmed the judgment and order under challenge.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the eyewitness accounts, the promptness of the report, and the nature of the injuries inflicted on the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the defects in the investigation did not undermine the prosecution's case, and the eyewitness accounts were deemed sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, the judgment and order under challenge were affirmed, and the appellants' bail was cancelled with immediate surrender and custody to serve the imposed sentence.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.

1. In this appeal preferred under Section 374 read with Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to be as the Cr.P.C.) appellants-Anup Chand, Suresh Chand and Manoj have challenged their conviction recorded under Section 302 IPC and sentence whereby each of them was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default of making payment of which, the defaulter was directed to undergo three months’ additional imprisonment, which was recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotdwar, Pauri Gahwal in Sessions Trial No. 37 of 2013.

2. Facts in a nutshell are that PW-1/Kunwar Singh (informant) gave an application dated 20.06.2013 to the Station Officer, Police Station Kotdwar to the effect that his son namely Kiran Singh had gone from house at about 06:00 PM for a walk. After sometime of his departure, PW-1 and his wife PW-2 also went to have a walk. When they reached near the house of one Chauhan, they saw at a distance of 70 metres that a Max vehicle was parked at the roadside and nearby which, three persons were belabouring a person with stones, sticks and hammer. After going near them when they raised alarm, all three began to run, all of who were my neighbours and were identified as Anup Chand, Suresh Chand and Manoj by both of them. The person lying on the road was soaked with blood and was wriggling out, was his son. On being taken to the hospital, the injured succumbed to his injuries. Seeing the said incident, the wife of the informant became extremely shocked who was taken to their house by the informant. Thereafter, the informant went to lodge the report. He further stated that earlier also marpeet was committed with my son, on instance of their brother-Narendra Singh, they committed this incident; Mohan Lal was also involved in this incident. With these averments, F.I.R. (Ext.Ka-1) was lodged.

3. On the basis of the said report, the case was registered at Police Station Kotdwar against the appellants namely Anup Chand, Suresh Chand, Manoj, Narendra Singh and Mohan Lal under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC. The chik FIR is on record as Ext.Ka-22. The matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer, who recorded the statements of witnesses; inspected the place of occurrence; prepared the site map; got recovered the murder weapons; sent the murder weapons for the purpose of chemical examination at Forensic Science Laboratory, Uttarakhand, Dehradun and after culmination of investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the appellants-Anup Chand, Suresh Chand and Manoj under Section 302 IPC, whereas, as against appellant-accused Mohan Lal, a charge-sheet under Section 120-B IPC was submitted in the court. The said charge-sheet is Ext.Ka-21. Narendra Singh was not charge-sheeted.

4. Learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar finding the case to be triable by the court of Sessions, committed the case, on 17.07.2013, against the persons who were charge-sheeted.

5. Learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal vide order dated 24.07.2013 proceeded to frame the charge against the accused-appellants under Section 302 IPC, whereas on the same day, a charge against the co-accused Mohan Lal (acquitted by the trial court) was framed under Section 120-B IPC. All the accused persons denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution in order to prove its case produce as many as six witnesses, namely, PW-1/Kunwar Singh, PW-2/Smt. Pyari Devi, PW-3/Dabbal Singh, PW-4/S.I. Kunwar Singh Bist, PW-5/Head Constable Raj Kumar and PW-6/Dr. Arun Kumar Pandey.

7. On completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which the accused persons stating the occurrence to be false, pleaded false implication on the pretext of their having land enmity with the father of deceased. They also produced certain documents in documentary evidence in their defence.

8. At the conclu