Decided on October 08,2012

State of Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand) Appellant


Prafulla C. Pant, J. - (1.) THIS appeal, preferred under section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.02.2001, passed by Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 1997, whereby said court has acquitted the accused/respondent Ravindra Singh from the charge of offence punishable under section 308 IPC.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. Prosecution story in brief is that on 18.08.1995, at about 5:00 p.m., P.W. 1 Dayal Singh had gone to the shop of one Sita Ram to make some purchases. When he reached near inter section of three ways on Garhi Road in Dehradun, accused Ravindra Singh armed with LATHI and accused Pyar Singh armed with PATAL (sharp edged weapon) assaulted Dayal Singh who suffered injuries on his head. A first information report (Ex. A1) was lodged by P.W. 1 Dayal Singh on the basis of which crime No. 502 of 1995, was registered in respect of offence punishable under section 308 IPC, against the two accused namely Pyar Singh and Ravindra Singh. The investigation was taken up by Sub Inspector Chaman Singh (P.W. 3) who interrogated the witnesses, collected medical evidence regarding injury on person of the injured (Dayal Singh), inspected the spot and submitted charge sheet against accused Ravindra Singh and Pyar Singh for their trial in respect of offence punishable under section 308 IPC. However, accused Pyar Singh died before committal of the case and his case stood abated.
(3.) CIVIL Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, on receipt of the charge sheet (Ex. A6) appears to have committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial of accused Ravindra Singh. Learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, on 07.08.1997, after hearing the parties framed charge of offence punishable under section 308 IPC, against accused Ravindra Singh who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W. 1 Dayal Singh (injured/informant), P.W. 2 Raghunath Singh (eye witness) and P.W. 3 Chaman Singh (Investigating Officer). Medical officer who examined injuries on person of the injured, appears to have been not examined as learned defence counsel admitted genuineness of the injury report and dispensed with the formal proof of the same.;

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