MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Barin Ghosh, C.J. -
(1.) ON 22nd October 1999, a first information report was lodged, where the appellant was one of the named accused persons. It was alleged that a death has taken place and a person has been severely injured, by reason of user of firearms. It was alleged that the appellant was having a rifle. It was also alleged that other accused persons were having guns and country made pistols. It was alleged that all the accused persons, including the appellant, in concert, committed the crime alleged in the first information report. This first information report was investigated, whereupon, a charge sheet was filed, where it was alleged, amongst others, that the appellant is guilty of commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. On the said charge sheet, charge was framed. At the time of framing charge, it was alleged that the appellant has committed offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) IN course of trial, prosecution relied upon postmortem report of the deceased and the injury report of the injured person. P.W.8 proved the postmortem report, whereas P.W.10 proved the injury report. As was indicated in the postmortem report that the deceased received pallet injuries, which were fired from guns, so was proved by P.W.8, who also clarified that the deceased did not receive any bullet injury. He accepted that bullets alone could be fired from rifle and not pallets. As was stated in the injury report, P.W.10 also stated that the injuries received were lacerated wounds. As was opined in the injury report that those lacerated wounds were received by reason of user of firearm, so the P.W. 10 deposed, while proving the injury report in course of trial. He opined that such injuries may be caused by guns, pistols and rifles, but he is unable to say by which those injuries were sustained. He made it clear that he has no knowledge as to what kind of wound can be made by user of either a rifle, or a gun, or a pistol. No spent bullet, nor any empty cartridge of a bullet was found at the place of incident. No rifle was found in possession of the appellant and, no rifle was exhibited as a material exhibit.
(3.) WHILE the deceased is the son of the person who received injuries, the person who lodged the first information report was the other son of the person, who received injuries. Both of them gave evidence in support of prosecution. While the informant was P.W. 1, the injured person was P.W. 3. In course of evidence, P.W. 1 accepted the fact that on a first information report lodged by the appellant, P.W. 1 was sent to prison in respect of murder of the son and the brother of the appellant.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.