Decided on July 22,2013

Subhash Bhatt Alias Subha Bhatt Appellant


- (1.) On the basis of an FIR lodged by informant Mahesh Prasad Dobhal, charge-sheet was submitted against Subhash Bhatt alias Subha Bhatt for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 504, 506 of IPC and under Section 25 of Arms Act. Charges against the accused were framed, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW1 Constable Radha Krishan, PW2 Mahesh Prasad Dobhal, PW3 Dev Prakash, PW4 Hiramani Naithani, PW5 Ved Prakash Dobhal, PW6 Pramod Joshi, PW7 Head Constable Naresh Chand, PW8 S.I. D.P. Tyagi and PW9 S.I. K.S. Garbiyal were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The sole witness examined in case under Section 25 of Arms Act was PW1 S.I. K.S. Garbiyal. After considering the evidence on record, learned Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar (Garhwal) exonerated accused for the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act. He was, however, convicted under Sections 504, 506 Para II of IPC, vide judgment and order dated 01.02.2006. Aggrieved against said judgment and order, accused-applicant preferred criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge, which was dismissed, vide impugned judgment and order dated 09.05.2008. Aggrieved against said order, present criminal revision was preferred.
(2.) Learend court below, in his judgment dated 01.02.2006, disbelieved a substantial part of prosecution story, holding that offences under Section 452 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act were not proved against the accused. Learned trial court held that there was only PW4 Hiramani Naithani to establish the identity of the accused. PW2 Mahesh Prasad Dobhal and PW3 Dev Prakash did not see any incident on their own. They heard from PW5 Ved Prakash Dobhal and PW6 Pramod Joshi that such an incident took place. The accused was not apprehended on the spot. PW5 too said that some unknown person was hurling abuses in the dark. The incident allegedly took place on 21st April 2002, at 10:30 P.M. PW6 also said that some unknown person hurled abuses in the night. It is said that the accused disclosed that he was Subhash Bhatt. No prudent person will believe that an accused will shout his own name, and disclose his identity, while committing any crime against somebody. Neither PW4, nor PW5, nor PW6 saw the accused trespassing into the house of the complainant. No prosecution witness divulged the ingredients of Section 504 of IPC. None of the prosecution witnesses established that the presence of the accused gave such an impact which was prescribed under Section 506 of IPC. The essentials of criminal intimidation were not proved.
(3.) Learned lower appellate court based his finding on the basis of hearsay evidence. According to learned lower appellate court, the evidence tendered against the accused-revisionist was admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. Even if the said inference be presumed to be true, a bare reading of the testimony of prosecution witnesses will suggest that the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 of IPC were missing from the prosecution evidence. What insult was caused to the informant, was not divulged. Likewise, the essential ingredients of Section 506 of IPC were also not proved.;

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