Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. -
(1.) PRESENT criminal revision was preferred by complainant Dhoom Singh, challenging the acquittal of the accused -respondents Moti, Tejpal, Ravipal, Govind and Smt. Rumali in Sessions Trial No. 218 of 1997, of the charges of offences punishable under Section 147, S. 148, S. 323 read with S. 149, S. 452 and S. 302 read with S. 149 of IPC. Learned court below also acquitted accused -respondent Govind of the charge of offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act in Sessions Trial No. 220 of 1997.
(2.) REVISIONIST 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 revisionist, 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 -revisionist and his son Subhash were going towards their house, accused persons met them outside their house. Co -accused Anand (convict in Sessions Trial No. 218 of 1997) fired upon his son Subhash, resulting into his death on the spot. Accused -respondent Rumali inflicted blows of lathi on revisionist 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 revisionist and the accused persons over digging up of a pathway. Accused persons dug up trench on the pathway, obstructing passage to revisionist's house on 23.12.1996, to which he (revisionist) objected. On the basis of said complaint, a chik FIR (Ext. Ka -21) was registered on 24.12.1996 at 7:00 P.M. against all the accused persons relating to offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 and 452 of IPC. A subsequent chick report (Ext. Ka -19) was also registered on 14.01.1997, at 9:15 P.M. against convict (not respondent) Anand and respondent Govind relating to offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. After investigation, charge sheets were submitted against the accused persons and when trial commenced, charges were framed against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined ten witnesses viz., PW 1 Dhoom Singh (informant/revisionist and injured eyewitness), PW 2 Amit Kumar (injured eyewitness), PW 3 Smt. Shakuntala (another injured eyewitness), PW 4 Atar Singh (signatory to inquest report), PW 5 Tej Singh (declared hostile), PW 6 Dr. Narendra Singh (who medically examined injured revisionist Dhoom Singh), PW 7 S.O. S.N. Yadav (who investigated the case and submitted charge sheet), PW 8 Dr. O.P. Sharma (who conducted postmortem on the dead body of Subhash), PW 9 S.I. Bhawar Singh (who investigated the crime relating to offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act) and PW 10 Constable Ompal Singh (who prepared chick FIR and made entry in G.D.). After the prosecution evidence was closed, incriminating evidence was put to respondents under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they have been falsely implicated in the case. D.W. 1 Surendra Kumar, Lekhpal was examined in defence to show that there was no pathway on the fields of non -respondent Anand, leading to the cane crusher of revisionist Dhoom Singh. After hearing both the sides, learned trial court convicted accused Anand for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC, but other accused persons (respondents herein) namely, Moti, Tejpal, Ravipal, Govind and Smt. Rumali were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. Aggrieved against said order, present criminal revision was preferred by the complainant -revisionist Dhoom Singh. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent Govind died during the pendency of revision and, therefore, case as against him stood abated vide order dated 06.09.2012.
(3.) PW 1 Dhoom Singh proved the contents of his complaint (Ext. Ka -1) and said that on the fateful day, when he alongwith his son Subhash and other people were working in cane crusher, his another son Amit came rushing to him and told that Govind, Mahipal, Tej Singh, Moti Ram, Ravipal, Anand and Rumali were assaulting his mother with the weapons they were carrying in their hands. On hearing the same, when PW 1 and his son were going towards their house, accused (non -respondent) Anand fired upon Subhash with his licensed gun, as a consequence thereof, Subhash died immediately on the spot. Moti fired upon PW 1, as a result of which PW 1 fell down, but somehow managed to escape unhurt. Accused Rumali gave PW 1 blows of lathi. PW 2 Amit Kumar, eyewitness and son of PW 1, said that accused Govind and Mahipal gave a blow of lathi and blunt side of axe on his mother Shakuntala. He went rushing to the cane crusher. Anxiety of well being of Shakuntala drove them towards their house. Accused (non -respondent) Anand fired upon Subhash, which resulted into his death. Thereafter, accused -respondents Moti and Ravipal fired upon PW 1 Dhoom Singh, but he escaped unhurt. Accused -respondent Rumali gave a blow of lathi on PW 1. PW 3 Shakuntala said that when her son Amit Kumar saw that she was being beaten up by accused persons, he went to his father and brother to inform, whereupon Subhash, another son of this witness, came rushing to the house. When Subhash reached near his house, accused (non -respondent) Anand fired upon him with his gun, as a result thereof, he died immediately on the spot. Thereafter, accused -respondent Moti fired upon PW 1 Dhoom Singh, but he somehow managed to escape unhurt. PW 3 Shakuntala was beaten up by accused -respondent Govind and accused Mahipal with fists and lathis. Accused -respondent Rumali gave a blow of lathi on PW 1's hands. Such injury was examined in the hospital on a subsequent date. This was principally the evidence, in a nutshell, which was directed against the accused -respondents.;