STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. SAJID AND OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2012-9-139
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on September 07,2012

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Appellant
VERSUS
Sajid And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Present Government Appeal was preferred by State of Uttarakhand against the judgment and order dated 07.10.2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / II FTC, Haridwar in sessions trial no. 366 / 2002, whereby accused / respondents Sajid, Ayub, Mansab, Sahran and Sher Ali were acquitted of the charges of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 149 of IPC and further, accused Sher Ali was also acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 3 / 25 Arms Act in session trial no. 381 / 2002.
(2.) The contention of learned Government Advocate was that the judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / II FTC, Haridwar was illegal and contrary to the facts and material evidence available on record. Learned trial court has 2 wrongly disbelieved the prosecution evidence and wrongly acquitted accused / respondents. It was therefore, prayed that the Government Appeal be allowed and impugned order of acquittal of accused / respondents may be set aside. A prayer was also made to convict and sentence the respondents according to law.
(3.) Learned trial court disbelieved recovery of country made pistol from Sher Ali on the grounds, inter alia, that whereas eyewitness Hashim said that there were 3-4 people present when the country made pistol was recovered, PW11 Mahesh Chand, SI said that there was no person when the country made pistol was recovered from the possession of respondent Sher Ali. Further, whereas, according to Hashim, one country made pistol and two cartridges were sealed on the spot, according to PW8 K.V.N. Tyagi and PW11 Mahesh Chand, only one cartridge, which was embedded, was recovered. Still further, both the police witnesses could not tell the bore of country made pistol as well as the cartridge. The recovery of country made pistol and cartridge thus became doubtful. Hashim was an interested witness. Why an independent witness was not procured to prove recovery;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.