GAURAV Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) In the instant case, P.W.1 Kamal Gupta
lodged complaint (Ext.Ka-1) against accused
persons on January 12, 2002. The same was
registered as case crime no. 24 / 2002 under
Sections 394, 302, 201 IPC by P.S. Lansdowne,
District Pauri Garhwal on 12.01.2002 at 8:00 a.m.
The occurrence took place on 11.01.2002 at
unknown time. The distance between place of
occurrence and P.S. Lansdowne was 27
kilometres. Hence, there appeared to be no delay
in lodging chik FIR (Ext.Ka-9).
(2.) Prosecution story was narrated by P.W.1
Kamal Gupta before the trial court. He said
amongst other things, that he was the Director /
Proprietor of M/s Shiv Dayal Gupta Agency Pvt.
Ltd. Kotdwar. The said firm owned a truck no.
UP06 5774. On 08.01.2002, Sudhir and appellant
Gaurav were deputed as driver and cleaner on the
said truck. Sudhir and appellant Gaurav were
present before the trial court when P.W.1 Kamal
Gupta deposed. Informant said in his
examination-in-chief that the salesman of his firm
was victim Naresh Agarwal. On 08.01.2002 the
truck was sent for sale of various articles from
Srinagar to Gopeshwar via Rudraprayag.
Salesman Naresh Agarwal, driver Sudhir and
cleaner Gaurav were sent with the truck. On
11.01.2002, victim Naresh Agarwal rang-up the
informant from Rudraprayag that they were
proceeding (to Kotdwar), but employees did not
reach Kotdwar on 11.01.2002. On 12.01.2002
another driver Virendra Singh of the same firm
informed proprietor of the firm that truck no.
UP06 5774 was found by him near the bridge of
river Kho in suspicious circumstances. Informant
went to the bridge and found truck in damaged
condition. The lock of cash box was broken. There
was no cash inside it. Informant made a search for
the corpus of driver, cleaner and salesman. At
Krainkhal informant found dead body of cashier
Naresh Agarwal. Driver and cleaner were not
found. He suspected that driver and cleaner have
looted the cash. P.W.1 Kamal Gupta proved
complaint Ext.Ka-1. Then he accompanied police
party. He further proved recovery memo of cashmemo and diary (Ext.Ka-2). Truck was given in
his supurdagi vide Ext.Ka-3. He obtained cash
memo and diary from the Investigating Officer for
accounting and payment. Accused persons looted
a sum of Rs.3,66,272.50 after killing Naresh
Agarwal. P.W.1 Kamal Gupta also proved diary
(Material Ext.1) and cash memo (Material Ext.2).
He also proved the application (Ext.Ka-4) which
was addressed to the Station Officer for obtaining
diary and cash memo. He also proved accounts
presented before S.O. Lansdowne (Ext.Ka-5).
(3.) In his cross-examination, he admitted that in
Material Ext.2 (cash memo) names of seller and
purchaser were not mentioned. Cash memos of
01.01.2002, 09.01.2002 and 10.01.2002 were not
prepared. Name of victim was not mentioned in
Material Ext.1 (diary). He admitted that it is not
clear from diary (Ext.1) whether victim received
any money or not? Sudhir was deputed on the
truck since last days of November, 2001.
Appellant Gaurav was deputed on the said truck
since December 2001. Names of these two
appellants were recorded in the Labour Office as
well as the Register (which was not produced
before the court on the day of deposition but was
offered to be produced in the court on the next
date. This said registered was never produced).
He admitted that Rs. 3,66,272.50 were neither
mentioned in Ext.1 nor in Ext.2. Victim Naresh
Agarwal carried Rs. 4,12,151.00 along with him as
per statement Ext.5. He admitted that the goods
were bought by victim on 08.01.2002. The
description of the same was not presented before
the court. He admitted that he did not see the
occurrence. Ext.Ka-2 and Ext.Ka-3 were
prepared near the bridge. A suggestion was put
forwarded to the informant that the appellant was
not in his employment as conductor to which the
informant denied. He also denied that the
appellant was not the culprit.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.