OMMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
LAWS(UTN)-2013-11-100
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on November 26,2013

Omma Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) On the complaint of PW1 Smt. Ram Kali against accused Omma for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, investigation began. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused under Section 307 of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charge for the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW1 Smt. Ram Kali (informant), PW2 Vijay Pal (injured), PW3 Vijendar (eyewitness), PW4 Dr. Ajay Mohan Agarwal (Medical Officer), PW5 Kiram Pal (eyewitness), PW6 Constable Jagdish Kumar (formal witness), PW7 S.I. Narendra Singh (Investigating Officer) and PW8 Dr. Yogesh Kumar (Radiologist) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was adduced in defence.
(2.) After considering the evidence on record, accused Omma s/o Nihala was found guilty and was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of which, the convict was required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, vide impugned judgment and order dated 08.08.2006. Aggrieved against the same, present criminal appeal was preferred.
(3.) PW1 was the informant but not the eyewitness. She was mother-in-law of the injured (PW2). PW2 was the injured. PW2 was fired upon by the accused with country made pistol, as a consequence of which, PW2 sustained firearm injuries on the right side of chest. PW3 and PW5 were the eyewitnesses. PW4 was the Medical Officer, who examined the injuries of PW2 on 25.10.2004 in Civil Hospital, Roorkee. PW4 proved injury report (Ext. Ka-2) of PW2. He also stated that the injuries sustained by PW3 were possible to have been caused by firearm. Injuries sustained by PW2 were kept under observation. Supplementary report of his injuries was also prepared. PW8 was the Radiologist, who conducted x-ray of the chest of PW2 on 25.10.2004 in Government Combined Hospital, Roorkee. PW6 was a formal witness and PW7 was the Investigating Officer of the case. Prosecution evidence was appropriately dealt with by learned Addl. Sessions Judge / II F.T.C., Haridwar in his judgment dated 08.08.2006 and there appears to be no illegality in the said judgment and order. This Court would have gone into the details of the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses, but for the reason that a compounding application is filed on behalf of the injured and the appellant to indicate that they have buried their differences and settled their dispute amicably. A compounding application is filed jointly by the injured and the appellant with the prayer to permit the injured to compound the offence proved against the appellant.;


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