MADAN & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2012-9-141
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on September 07,2012

Madan And Another Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) On 12 th February, 1995, a dead body was discovered by the side of the Railway track having a large number of injury marks. The dead body was sent for post mortem. The doctor, who conducted the post mortem, reported in the post mortem report that the cause of death was ante mortem injuries. On 14 th February, 1995, Dharmendra, PW1, filed a First Information Report and, therein, stated that the dead body, which was discovered by the side of the Railway track, was the dead body of his brother and that the brother of the informant was invited by the appellants for a feast, whereupon, appellants did away with the victim. This First Information Report was investigated, when PW2 and PW5 held out that the victim was last seen in the company of the appellants. In course of investigation, appellants were also arrested, when appellant Nathi Ram is said to have supplied information leading to discovery of the murder weapons, namely, an axe and a sambal. The investigation was, thus, completed and a charge-sheet was filed. On the basis of the charge-sheet, charges for having committed crimes punishable under Sections 364, 302, read with Section 34, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code were framed.
(2.) In course of trial, it transpired that the doctor, who conducted the post mortem, is no more. Accordingly, the post mortem report was proved by a person, who knew the signature of the doctor. No other doctor came to explain the post mortem report. Accordingly, there was no evidence before the court whether the injuries, being the cause of the death of the victim, were homicidal in nature or accidental in nature. Prosecution made no attempt to establish the same.
(3.) The informant, as PW1, held out what he had held out in his First Information Report and accepted the fact that he is not a witness to the alleged offences. Charan Singh, as PW2, held out that, while at around 11:00 p.m. of 11 th February, 1995 he was going to his field, he saw the victim in the company of the appellants near the house of the mother-inlaw of appellant Nathi Ram, when the appellants and the victim were quarrelling amongst each other and there was scuffle in between them. PW2 stated in course of evidence that he thought, as usual, these three people, having become intoxicated, are fighting amongst each other. He stated that he knows nothing in addition to that. Ashok Kumar deposed as PW5 and, in course thereof, held out that at about 11:45 p.m. of 11 th February, 1995 he was coming to the village, where the house of the mother-in-law of appellant Nathi Ram is situate, by scooter and, on way, he found the appellants and that the victim was lying on a cot by the side of the road. On inquiry, appellants alleged to have held out that the victim has become intoxicated and, accordingly, they have made him lie down on the charpayi.;


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