GAJENDER Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2012-10-49
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on October 04,2012

Gajender Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) In the instant case, victim is Ranveer, husband of Bharti (PW2) and father of Ruchi (PW4). According to the chik FIR, the First Information Report was lodged at 10:15 p.m. of 10 th September, 1992. The First Information Report was lodged by PW2. The same was written by Sri M.A. Khan (PW1), who was the landlord of the victim.
(2.) According to the prosecution, Rekha, youngest sister of PW2, after having had divorced her earlier husband, married Sri Ashok, who was married to the sister of the appellant. It was the case of the prosecution that the appellant and his brother Narender, along with one Sanjay, a relative of the appellant and Narender, came to the house of PW2 with Brijpal and Nirmala, respectively father-in-law and mother-in-law of the only brother of PW2. The purpose of the said visit, according to the prosecution, was to ascertain the whereabouts of Rekha and Ashok. The victim held out to them that he does not know the whereabouts of Rekha and Ashok. It was also the case of the prosecution that Dharam Singh (PW5), father of PW2, was called by appellant, Narender and Sanjay at Delhi, PW5 went to Delhi and stayed with one of his daughters at Delhi, when appellant, Narender and Sanjay enquired from him whereabouts of Rekha and Ashok. It was also the case of the prosecution that PW5 held out to them that he does not know the whereabouts of Rekha and Ashok. On that, PW5 was allegedly told by the appellant, Narender and Sanjay that there will be bloodbath and the victim will also be done away with. It was the case of PW5 that, while he informed over phone the victim about the threat thus meted out, he had also lodged an information with a police station at Delhi about the incident. Allegedly, a xerox copy thereof was produced by the prosecution, which was allegedly tendered as Paper No. 11 Ka / 2, but the fact remains that no such paper is in the file of the lower court and Paper No. 11 Ka / 2 in the lower court records is the judgment of the lower court. It appears to be the case of the prosecution that, in course of investigation pursuant to the First Information Report, six empty cartridges and one misfired bullet were recovered from one of the rooms of the house of PW2. Victim was taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced brought dead . The post mortem of the dead body established that the death was by reason of ante mortem gunshot injuries received by the victim. From the post mortem report and the evidence of Dr. Alok Tewtia (PW3), who conducted the post mortem, it was found that the victim received three gunshot injuries, all from the front side of his body. Two of those gunshot injuries left the body of the victim from the backside thereof. One bullet was embedded in the head of the victim. The other two bullets, which entered from the front side and exited from the back, were not found in course of investigation.
(3.) Appellant, his brother Narender, his relative Sanjay, as well as Brijpal and Nirmala, were charged for having committed offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 120B, of the Indian Penal Code. Narender absconded. Accordingly, charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 120B, of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant, Sanjay, Brijpal and Nirmala. What happened to the charge framed against Sanjay is not known. The trial was conducted of the said charge against the appellant, Brijpal and Nirmala. By the judgment and order under appeal, Brijpal and Nirmala have been exonerated. No Government Appeal has been preferred against that part of the judgment under appeal, whereby Brijpal and Nirmala were exonerated.;


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