STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. TRILOK CHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2012-12-62
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on December 07,2012

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Appellant
VERSUS
TRILOK CHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Barin Ghosh, J. - (1.) GRAVE injury sustained by the victim on his head ultimately caused his death. The death occurred after about 14 hours from the time of receiving the injury. The injury was received at around 10:00 a.m. of 30 August, 2002 and the victim died around 11:50 p.m. of 30th August, 2002. The First Information Report was lodged on 31st August, 2002 at 10:00 a.m. In the First Information Report, it was alleged that the victim was done away with by the respondent by using a belcha on the head of the victim. Dr. Vijay Vilas Dubey (PW 1) conducted the post mortem. He proved the post mortem report. Post mortem report suggested that the victim received a fatal injury on his head. PW 1, in course of tendering evidence, stated that such injury could be caused by using a belcha. He also stated that such injury could be received by falling a good length. Laxmi Narayan (PW 2) is the person, who brought the victim in the village in injured condition. He said that he and the victim had gone to fetch sand from the land of the respondent for the purpose of using the same in the work of construction of road that was undertaken by the victim. It was said that they had collected sand and kept some of them for being taken away, when the respondent came and asked for the money. PW 2 added that the victim held out to the respondent that the respondent would be paid the price of sand no sooner the victim receives payment of the work of construction undertaken by him. It was stated that the respondent refused to accede to such holding out and insisted for payment immediately. At that juncture, respondent took up belcha and gave a blow of the same on the head of the victim. He said that, thereafter, he brought the victim to the village after bringing back the sense of the victim by sprinkling water on his face and, at that time, the condition of the victim was not that bad. He said that, thereafter, he left and, later on, he came to learn that the victim has died. Tulsi Datt (PW 5) lodged the First Information Report, where he had almost narrated the version of PW 2 recorded above and added that the victim was taken to hospital for treatment, where he died. Daya Kishan (PW 3) is the person before whom an alleged extra -judicial confession was made by the respondent. The fact remains that it was not stated in the First Information Report that, when the victim was taken to the hospital, it was disclosed to the hospital authorities that the injury that the victim has received was inflicted by a belcha blow. The fact also remains that, before the victim was taken to the hospital, he was taken to the Primary Health Centre, where he was attended to by Dr. Ghanshyam Tiwari (DW 2). DW 2 stated in course of tendering evidence that, when the victim was brought to the Primary Health Centre, it was not held out that the victim has received an injury by reason of infliction of a belcha blow. The fact remains that the prosecution did not make any attempt to prove that the victim was engaged in a contract, for which, he required sand and that the victim and PW 2 had gone to fetch sand and also that the land, from which sand was fetched proposed to be fetched, belonged to the respondent. That being the state of evidence brought on record, the court below did not feel it safe to convict the respondent solely on the basis of the evidence tendered by PW 2. We find no reason to interfere therewith.
(2.) THE appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Let a copy of this judgment, along with the lower court records, be sent back to the court below.;


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