ANAND Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
LAWS(UTN)-2012-10-43
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on October 01,2012

ANAND Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) One Dhoom Singh s/o Nathu wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) to Officer In-Charge Police Outpost Gowardhanpur, police station Manglore, District Haridwar, complaining about the murder of Subhash. According to the informant / complainant, on 24.12.1996, at 4:45 P.M., when he alongwith his son Subhash, Sukhpal, Ramesh, Satpal and Rishipal were crushing sugarcane, his another son Amit Kumar came rushing to him. Amit Kumar told that Anand, armed with licensed gun; Moti, armed with rifle; Tejpal and Ravipal, both carrying small guns; Mahipal having axe; Govind and Smt. Rumali carrying lathis (sticks) were inflicting blows on Amit Kumar s mother. On hearing the same, when complainant and his son Subhash were going towards their house, accused persons met them outside their house. Accused Anand fired upon his son Subhash, resulting into his death on the spot. Accused Rumali inflicted blows of lathi on complainant Dhoom Singh. The incident was witnessed by workers working in the cane crusher and other people. The genesis of incident was a dispute between the complainant and the accused persons over digging up of a pathway. Accused persons dug up trench on the pathway, obstructing passage to complainant s house on 23.12.1996, to which he (complainant) objected. On the basis of said complaint, a chik FIR (Ext. Ka-21) was lodged on 24.12.1996 at 07:00 P.M. against all the accused persons relating to offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 and 452 of IPC. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police outpost was 14 Kms. and, hence, there appeared to be no delay in lodging the first information report. A subsequent chick report (Ext. Ka-19) was also lodged on 14.01.1997, at 09:15 P.M. against accused Anand and Govind relating to offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act.
(2.) After completion of investigation, a charge sheet (Ext. Ka-14) was filed against the accused persons Anand, Moti, Tejpal, Ravipal, Govind and Smt. Rumali for their trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 452 and 323 of IPC. Two separate charge sheets (Ext. Ka-16) and (Ext. Ka-18) were filed against accused Govind and Anand respectively, for their trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 27 and 25 of Arms Act. When the trial commenced, charges relating to offences punishable under Section 147, S.148, S.452, S.323 read with S.149, and S.302 read with S.149 of IPC were framed against all the accused persons. Separate charges were framed against accused Anand and Govind in respect of offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. Accused persons denied the charges framed against them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(3.) Prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses namely, PW1 Dhoom Singh (informant and injured eyewitness), PW2 Amit Kumar (injured eyewitness), PW3 Smt. Shakuntala (another injured eyewitness), PW4 Atar Singh (signatory to inquest report), PW5 Tej Singh (declared hostile), PW6 Dr. Narendra Singh (who medically examined injured Dhoom Singh), PW7 S.O. S.N. Yadav (who investigated the case and submitted charge sheet), PW8 Dr. O.P.Sharma (who conducted postmortem on the dead body of Subhash), PW9 S.I. Bhawar Singh (who investigated the crime relating to offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act) and PW10 Constable Ompal Singh (who prepared chick FIR and made entry in G.D.). In defence, D.W.1 Surendra Kumar was produced on behalf of the accused.;


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