Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(UK) 94

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Raj Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.217 Of 2008 With Criminal Appeal No.218 Of 2008 With Criminal Appeal No.225 Of 2008 With Criminal Appeal No.226 Of 2008 With Criminal Appeal No.227 Of 2008
Decided On : 24-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ms. Aklema Parveen, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondents: Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, AGA.

IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and significant discrepancies can lead to acquittal.

Headnote:
Criminal - Attempt to Murder - IPC Sections 307, 34; Arms Act Section 25 - The court discussed the essential elements of attempt to murder and the evidentiary burden on the prosecution, ultimately finding significant discrepancies that undermined the prosecution's case, leading to acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were accused of attempting to murder police officers and illegal possession of firearms during a police patrol. They allegedly opened fire on the police and were arrested with recovered weapons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found major discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including contradictions in witness statements and lack of forensic evidence, which led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the prosecution established the charges of attempt to murder and illegal possession of firearms against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 307 IPC, both intention to commit murder and an act towards it must be proven, which the prosecution failed to do due to inconsistencies in evidence.
Result: The appeals are allowed, and the appellants are acquitted of all charges.

JUDGMENT :

(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) :

The appellant – accused Raj Singh has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”) in Sessions Trial No.123 of 2007, against which he has filed Criminal Appeal No.217 of 2008.

2. The appellant – accused Raj Singh has been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 in Sessions Trial No.124 of 2007 against which he has filed Criminal Appeal No.218 of 2008.

3. The appellant – accused Virendra alias Maunarodh has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 in Sessions Trial No.125 of 2007 against which he has filed Criminal Appeal No.225 of 2008

4. The appellant – accused Vipin Tyagi has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 in Sessions Trial No.126 of 2007 against which he has filed Criminal Appeal No.226 of 2008.

5. The appellants – accused Virendra alias Maunarodh and Vipin Tyagi have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC in Sessions Trial No.123 of 2007 against which they have filed Criminal Appeal No.227 of 2008.

6. These five Appeals have arisen from a common judgment dated 16.07.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ist FTC, Haridwar, therefore, these Appeals are being decided by this common judgment. The Criminal Appeal No.217 of 2008 will be treated as a leading case.

7. The prosecution case briefly stated is that Dhirendra Singh Rawat, Station House Officer, (PW3) along with Sub-Inspector J.P. Thapliyal (PW1), Constable Parvesh Sharma (PW2) and other police personnel were patrolling on 13.12.2006. When the police party reached near Shivmurti Tiraha in Jhabreda, they got an information from an informer at 12:45 hrs. that three miscreants involved in dacoity in the area of police station Nangal are going towards Lakhnota in a grey colored numberless Maruti car. On receiving this information, as soon as the police team along with the informer reached ahead of Village Kotwal, the said car was seen coming. The police team signaled them to stop but they opened fire twice at the police team. The police team narrowly escaped from this firing. These three miscreants got down from the car and started running towards the forest. The police party arrested them at around 13:00 hrs. They were searched by the police team. A country made pistol 315 bore (Material Ext.1), a spent cartridge (Material Ext.2) in its barrel and a live cartridge (Material Ext.3) were recovered from the accused – Raj Singh. A country made pistol 315 bore (Material Ext.5), a spent cartridge (Material Ext.6) in its barrel and two live cartridges (Material Ext.7 and 8) were recovered from the possession of the accused Virendra alias Maunarodh. A country made pistol 315 bore (Material Ext.10), a cartridge (Material Ext.11) which had missed and got stuck in its barrel and a live cartridge 315 bore (Material Ext.12) were recovered from the accused – Vipin Tyagi. Despite efforts, member of the public could not be secured to testify. The articles recovered from the appellants – accused were seized by the police vide Recovery Memo (Ext. Ka.1). The Recovery Memo (Ext. Ka. 1) was signed by the witnesses present and the appellants – accused. Copy of the memo was given jointly to the accused.

8. An FIR was lodged pursuant to the Recovery Memo (Ext. Ka. 1). The FIR (Ext. Ka. 2) was registered by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document