JOHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-1-75
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on January 03,2013

JOHAR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The judgment, under appeal, is based on confession made by the appellant before Pooran Singh Bisht (PW14), who was the then Patwari and, as such, was in-charge of the local revenue police. The confession, thus accepted by the court, could not be proved by the prosecution against the appellant under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and no conviction, on the basis thereof, could be put home.
(2.) In the instant case, Bachan Singh died. Hayat Singh (PW1) is the father of Bachan Singh. He lodged a First Information Report on 7th June, 2003, wherein, he stated that he met the victim in the market around 05:30 p.m. of 14th May, 2003, where after, the whereabouts of the victim is not known. According to the prosecution version, one Prem Singh saw a few bones lying scattered in an animal den inside the forest, situate close to the village, and informed about the same to Nayab Tehsildar, where after, the Nayab Tehsildar, over phone, informed PW14. Soon thereafter, inquest was prepared in respect of six bones. Those were sent for post mortem and Dr. P.D. Pangria (PW13) conducted the post mortem. He suggested that the bones be sent for Forensic Science Laboratory as, according to him, it is not known, whether those bones are human bones and, if so, are of male or female human The cause of the death could not be deciphered. Accordingly, those were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, who, in turn, reported that the bones were of male human in the age group 19-21 years. Subsequent thereto, the bones were sent for medico legal examination, when it transpired that the bones were human bones, belonging to male, but the cause of death could not be deciphered in view of delay in providing the bones to the authority, who conducted the medico legal examination. In the vicinity of the bones, certain articles were recovered. This recovery was made on 12th June, 2003. Soon after the recovery, a First Information Report was written by PW1 on 12th June, 2003 and the same was lodged on 13th June, 2003. In the report, it was stated that, on 14th May, 2003, victim was in the company of the appellant herein and that, while inquiry was being made about the whereabouts of the victim, appellant held out that the victim has left boarding a small truck. In the said report, it was alleged that, after 7th June, 2003, in course of search of the victim, it transpired that the victim as well as the appellant were present at Khairling Mandir, where the appellant held out to the victim that the appellant will murder the victim and take his wife, and, that was heard by Jagat Singh (PW12) and another person by the name Kalyan.
(3.) In course of recording his testimony, PW12 did not say that he heard the appellant holding out to the victim that he will murder the victim and take his wife. Instead, PW12 stated that some unnecessary things were said by the appellant to the victim. PW12 is the elder brother of PW1. As would be evident from the first as well as from the second First Information Reports, and as was deposed by PW1, victim was working in the wayside Restaurant of Krishan Singh (PW6). PW6 is again the uncle of the victim and, accordingly, a cousin of PW1. PW6 stated that, around 5O' clock, PW1 and Gambhir Singh (PW7) came to his Restaurant and left his Restaurant around 05:00 p.m. of 14th May, 2003. It was stated by PW6 that, soon thereafter, appellant and the victim started taking liquor behind his Restaurant. Thereafter, victim and the appellant left by taking the road going down, while, prior thereto, PW1 and PW7 left the Restaurant of PW6 by taking the road leading upwards.;


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