Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(UK) 346

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
State of Uttaranchal - Appellant
Versus
Jagdish and Others - Respondents
Government Appeal No. 6 of 2008
Decided On : 18-04-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. K.S. Bohra, D.A.G.
For the Respondent: Ms. Garima Thapa, Amicus Curiae.

IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, which must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Headnote:
Criminal - Acquittal - IPC Sections 452, 323/34, 504, 506 and SC/ST Act Section 3(1)(x) - The court emphasized the necessity of credible evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to insufficient evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The informant alleged that the accused entered his house, assaulted him, and used caste-based insults. After a delayed medical examination and lack of immediate police action, the informant filed a complaint, leading to a trial where the accused were acquitted.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found contradictions in witness statements, delays in medical examination, and insufficient evidence to support the prosecution's claims, leading to the conclusion that the case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, including the alleged assault and use of caste-based insults.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any inconsistencies or lack of credible evidence would result in acquittal.
Result: The appeal by the State was dismissed, affirming the trial court's acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

This appeal, preferred by the State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed against the judgment and order dated 08.10.2002, passed by the 2nd F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Session Trial No.448 of 1999 State Vs. Jagdish and Others, whereby, the said Court at the end of trial, has acquitted the respondents-accused for the offence under Sections 452, 323/34, 504, 506 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed by PW1 informant (Bhopal) against the accused persons with the averments that on 21.01.1997 at 10:00 A.M., accused persons entered the house of informant and began to beat him. Accused-Jagdish giving threat to kill the informant, used caste indicative words against the informant. On hearing the noise raised by the informant, people from village namely Manjura, Suleman and several other persons came and could rescue the informant from the clutches of the accused persons. The accused persons while leaving gave a threat that they would kill him, in case he makes a complaint of this incident at the police station and also insulted the informant by using caste indicative words. The informant, thereafter, got himself medically examined on 22.01.1997 and brought the same at the police station. But, no action was taken on the same.

3. Since, no action was taken on his complaint, he preferred the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Court. On which, by order dated 31.01.1997, the Court called for a report from the concerned SHO and by order dated 04.02.1997, directed the SHO Police Station Pathri to investigate the matter and to submit the report in the Court.

4. The report was accordingly registered. The matter was investigated. The Investigating Officer conducted investigation and submitted the charge-sheet in the Court against the respondents-accused persons.

5. On 03.08.2000, learned 2nd Additional District Judge framed the charges against the accused persons under Sections 452, 323/34, 504, 506 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, which they denied and claimed to be tried.

6. As many as 4 witnesses namely PW1 Bhopal (informant), PW2 Suleman, PW3 Manjur Hasan and PW4 Dr. Chiranjilal were examined on behalf of prosecution to prove its case.

7. Thereafter, the statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused persons did not utter anything and stated that the case of the prosecution is false and it was also stated that the case proceeded due to enmity. No evidence in defense was produced.

8. The trial court at the end of trial has acquitted the respondents-accused as narrated in Para No.1 of this judgment, hence this appeal.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence available on record. First and foremost, it needs to be mentioned that the occurrence is stated to be of 21.01.1997 at 10:00 am, whereas, the injured-Bhopal got medical examination of his injuries at District Hospital Haridwar on 22.01.1997. PW4 Dr. Chiranjilal has proved the medical report (Ext.Ka-2). According to PW4, he medically examined the injuries on the person of injured on 22.01.1997 at 12:40 noon and found two injuries. No plausible explanation was given for such a long delay in conducting the medical examination.

10. The trial court noticed the contradiction in the statement of informant regarding giving the application to the Superintendent of Police. According to him, he had sent the application through registered post; however, the trial court noticed that no receipt of registry was available on record. According to the own case of informant, he came to the Court after 10 days of occurrence and gave the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which proves that no report was given

Click Here to Read the rest of this document