NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND NINE OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
State Of Uttaranchal And Nine Others
Click here to view full judgement.
Barin Ghosh, C. J. -
(1.) A First Information Report lodged by the revisionist was investigated upon and subsequent thereto a charge -sheet was filed. On the basis of the said charge -sheet, charges were framed under Sections 147, 427 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent Nos. 2 to 10. In the First Information Report, it was alleged, so was alleged in the charge -sheet, and, at the same time, the informant as P.W. 1, his wife as P.W. 2 and a friend of his son as P.W. 8 deposed that on the date of the incident, respondent Nos. 2 to 10 came to the shop of the informant, moved him and his customers out therefrom, whereafter they went to the residence of the informant and moved out therefrom the wife and the children of the informant and thereafter they alongwith many other people went to the terrace of the shop and the residence of the informant with iron rod (Sabbal) and large fork (Gainti) used for digging purpose and demolished the same, which caused a loss of Rs. 75,000/ - to the informant. Believing the story, thus made out, the first court convicted respondent Nos. 2 to 10 under Section 147 of IPC by awarding sentence of simple imprisonment for six months, under Section 427 of IPC by awarding a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - each and, in default, six months simple imprisonment and under Section 452 of IPC sentenced each of the respondents for simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and, in default, one months' simple imprisonment. The first court also directed payment of Rs. 25,000/ - out of the fine to be collected to the revisionist. In order to prove that the revisionist suffered damages, revisionist handed over a list of items indicating corresponding value thereof to the Investigating Officer in course of investigation, which was tendered in evidence before the first court. No effort was made before the first court to establish that, in fact, those listed items were in possession of the revisionist, and that, those were damaged or destroyed by the reason of the action complained of. At the same time, no attempt was made by the revisionist before the first court to establish that the value or price of those listed items were such, as were mentioned in the list. The first court did not give any reason, as is required to be given in support of its conclusion that the revisionist, atleast, suffered damages to the tune of Rs. 25,000/ -. The direction given by the first court to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - out of the fine to be paid by respondent Nos. 2 to 10 was, therefore, absolutely unjustified. Respondent Nos. 2 to 10 preferred an appeal against the said judgment and sentence pronounced by the first court. The appellate court set aside the judgment of the first court, principally on the ground that the revisionist and the other prosecution witnesses would not assign the role played by respondent Nos. 2 to 10 and others, who allegedly carried out the destruction. It must be kept in mind that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was not applied in the instant case. There is not one single piece of evidence, as to who did what destruction. Even no attempt was made to show who was carrying what, Accordingly, no insinuation could even be given as to who could effect what extent of damage. The appellate court, finding such evidence having been tendered before the first court, interfered and set aside the judgment and sentence awarded by the first court.
(2.) IN the revision, I have not been persuaded to take a different view than that of the appellate court. The revision fails and the same is dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.