SURENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(UTN)-2012-9-60
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on September 20,2012

Surendra Singh Chauhan and Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. (now Uttarakhand) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Prafulla C. Pant, J. - (1.) THIS appeal, preferred under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.09.1999, passed by Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, Camp Lansdowne, in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 1996, whereby said court has convicted accused/appellants Surendra Singh Chauhan, Gangotri Devi and Dharmendra Singh Chauhan under section 323/34 and 506 IPC, and on each count each of the convicts has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/ -. In default of payment of fine it is further directed that the defaulter convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for each default. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record.
(2.) PROSECUTION story in brief is that P.W.2 Ranjeet Singh Bisht lodged first information report (Ex.A1) at Police Station Kotdwar on 16.07.1995, stating that on said date at about noon he alongwith his father Dhyan Singh (P.W. 1) and mother Bharosi Devi (P.W.4) were weaving cot in their house in village Balasaur. It is alleged that accused/appellants Surendra Singh Chauhan, his wife Gangotri Devi and son Dharmendra Singh Chauhan (all three appellants) came at the door of the house of complainant, and started hurling abuses at him. On being asked to desist from using foul language, the three accused assaulted P.W. 1 Dhyan Singh, P.W.2 Ranjeet Singh and P.W.4 Bharosi Devi outside their house. On the basis of said report crime No. 413 of 1995, was registered in respect of offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506 IPC by the police. P.W.5 Sub Inspector Ram Kumar Sharma started investigation, the injured persons were medically examined by P.W.3 Dr. D.K. Jain who prepared injury reports (Ex. A2, Ex. A3 and Ex. A4). The Investigating Officer after interrogating the witnesses and inspecting the spot, filed charge sheet against all the three accused namely Surender Singh Chauhan, Gangotri Devi and Dharmendra Singh Chauhan for their trial in respect of offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506 IPC, and also in respect of offence punishable under section 307 IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, on receipt of the charge sheet (Ex. A8), after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., appears to have committed the case to the court of Sessions for their trial. Learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, on 28.01.1998, after hearing the parties framed charge of offences punishable under section 323/34, 504, 506 and 307/34 IPC, against the three accused namely Surendra Singh Chauhan, Gangotri Devi, and Dharmendra Chauhan, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W. 1 Dhyan Singh (injured eye witness), P.W.2 Ranjeet Singh (informant and injured eye witness), P.W.3 Dr. D.K. Jain (who medically examined the injured), P.W.4 Bharosi Devi (injured eye witness) and P.W.5 S.I. Ram Kumar Sharma (who investigated the crime). Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused in reply to which they pleaded that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court, after hearing the parties found that prosecution has successfully proved charge of offences punishable under section 323/34 IPC, and 506 IPC, and convicted them accordingly. The accused were acquitted from the charge in respect of the other offences. After hearing on sentence, the trial court sentenced each of the convicts to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/ - on each count i.e., 323/34 and 506 IPC. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 16.09.1999, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, Camp Kotdwar, in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 1996, this appeal was filed before Allahabad High Court from where it is received by transfer under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act (Central Act 29 of 2000) for its disposal.
(3.) I have gone through the statements of the three injured eye witnesses, and also perused the injury reports Ex. A2 relating to the Dhyan Singh, Ex. A3 relating to Bharosi Devi and Ex. A4 relating to Ranjeet Singh read with statement of P.W.3 Dr. D.K. Jain. The statements of the three injured eyewitnesses relating to incident that they were assaulted by the three accused, cannot be disbelieved, as, not only the statements of three eye witnesses is corroborative of each others statement but the same is also supported by the medical evidence on record. Their presence in their village is natural. The nature of the injury suffered by the injured persons is simple. On the point of criminal intimidation also there is nothing in the cross -examination of the eye witnesses which creates reasonable doubt in their testimony. As such, this Court finds no illegality committed by the trial court in convicting the three accused/appellants under section 323/34 and 506 -IPC.;


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