JOVAN LAL Vs. GOVIND SINGH AND ANOTHER
LAWS(UTN)-2013-7-158
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 16,2013

Jovan Lal Appellant
VERSUS
Govind Singh And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Revisionist Jovan Lal has filed this criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 26.07.2007, passed by the Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in S.T. No. 30 of 2003, State vs Govind Singh, whereby the accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of IPC.
(2.) Complainant-Revisionist Jovan Lal lodged an FIR in Patwari Chowki, Mori, on 14.05.2003, enumerating the facts contained therein that on 12.05.2003, accused took his father alongwith him to village Saranswala. Complainant s father did not return by the evening. On 13.05.2003, accused came to the house of the complainant saying that his father fell from a ridge. The complainant rushed to the place of incident. Victim told his son that Govind Singh and Rajpal Singh assaulted him. Complainant was accompanied by Sania, Heera Lal, Vijay Pal and Kamlesh. The victim named the accused persons while breathing his last. The FIR was lodged on the next day at 11:00 A.M. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it s case, charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW1 Jovan Lal, PW2 Vijay Pal, PW3 Smt. Sunita, PW4 Dr. Vijyesh Bhardwaj, PW5 Smt. Rami, PW6 Kamlesh, PW7 Vijaypal Singh, PW8 Sania, PW9 Kameshwar Prasad Patwari and PW10 Ujjawal Singh Patwari 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 given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court, vide impugned judgment and order dated 26th July 2007, exonerated accused Govind Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and also exonerated co-accused Rajpal Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order, present criminal revision was preferred by the complainant.
(3.) Prosecution led the evidence through PW1 Jovan Lal, who was the son of the deceased. PW1 said that on 12.05.2003, in the morning, when his father was ploughing the field, accused came there and took him to a work. The victim was initially reluctant, but finally agreed. Accused said that he would give him good wages. The victim did not return in the night. On 13.05.2003, at 08:00 A.M., Govind Singh came to PW1 and said that his father was lying near Rata Oddar. PW1, alongwith others, namely, Sania, Vijay Pal and Kamlesh went to the place where his father was lying. PW1 said that his father was injured, but was alive. PW1 enquired from his father about his critical condition. The victim did not speak anything. He was not in a position to speak anything. He looked at Govind Singh. PW1 enquired from his father whether Govind Singh assaulted him His father nodded his head. Govind Singh left the place. The victim was taken to his house, but he died on way to his house. The dead body of the deceased was taken to PW1 s house. PW1 also proved his complaint (Ext. Ka-1). PW1 suspected accused behind the murder of his father. In the cross-examination, PW1 said that his father was trying to speak, but was unable to speak. The victim was not taken to hospital. Instead, he was taken to his home. Postmortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased. When the dead body was taken for postmortem, accused Govind Singh was present, although co-accused Rajpal was not. Thus, the only evidence against the accused, as per PW1, was that the victim nodded his head when PW1 enquired from his father whether accused Govind Singh assaulted him PW2 Vijay Pal also said that the victim was unable to speak anything, when he alongwith PW1 and other persons reached at the place of incident. He also repeated the same thing that the victim nodded his head when PW1 enquired from him whether Govind Singh assaulted him In the cross-examination, PW2 admitted that Mania (victim) was unconscious when they reached at the place of incident. PW2 also admitted in the cross-examination that Mania did not speak anything. PW3 Smt. Sunita did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. PW4 Dr. Vijyesh Bhardwaj conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. According to him, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. The Medical Officer found abraded contusions on vital parts of the body of deceased.;


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