DIWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
LAWS(UTN)-2012-5-5
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on May 08,2012

DIWAN SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Criminal Law was set into motion at the instance of Kishan Singh s/o Kheem Singh, resident of village Chamali Pattti Chamali, district Pithoragarh in the instant case. He (Kishan Singh) wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) on 02.08.1999 enumerating the facts therein that his daughter Neela Devi was married to Hanuman Singh son of Diwan Singh resident of village Chhanaula about 4-5 years ago according to Hindu rites and rituals. Informant Kishan Singh who was unfortunate father of the victim, was serving in a private organization in Delhi. On 25.07.1999 he received a telephonic call that his daughter was dead. His son-in-law Hanuman Singh was also serving in New Delhi. When father and husband of deceased came back, they first went to the matrimonial house of the deceased (husband s house). When enquired from victim s in-laws they gave casual reply regarding the death of victim. Thereafter the informant went back to his home. He came to know that his daughter was killed on 24.07.1999. He also came to know that on 25.07.1999 informant s younger brother Gokul Singh and others went to victim s matrimonial home along with other persons. They found that Neela Devi s dead body was kept in a courtyard. Blood was oozing out from her mouth and there was ligature mark on her neck. On being enquired as to how the victim died, her father-in-law Diwan Singh said, "so many persons have died in Kargil, so has she". On being enquired regarding whereabouts of Patwari and village Sabhapati, victim s in-laws pleaded ignorance. Gokul informed informant that he along with others came to Pithoragarh to inform him (informant) on telephone. They said that victim did not die a natural death but she was killed. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law used to harass her and killed her.
(2.) On the complaint of bereaved father, chik FIR (Ext. Ka-2) was lodged at Gurna, district Pithoragarh on 02.08.1999. Occurrence took place on 24.07.1999. The distance between the village where the occurrence took place and reporting Supervisor Kanungo was 25 kilometers. The First Information Report was registered as case crime no. 2/1999 under Section 302/201 IPC.
(3.) After completing investigation, a chargesheet for the offence punishable under Section 304B and 201 IPC was submitted against the accused appellants. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304-B IPC were framed against the accused appellants. In the alternative, charges for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC read with 34 IPC and 201 IPC were framed against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As many as 10 prosecution witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution. Statements of the accused persons were taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. One witness i.e. DW 1 Kesar Singh Karki, Public Notary was adduced in defence.;


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