STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Vs. KUNWAR SINGH AND OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2013-7-141
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 11,2013

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Appellant
VERSUS
Kunwar Singh And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Informant Sundar Singh lodged first information report in PS Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal against 16 accused persons, which was registered as case crime no. 3 of 1992, under Sections 147, 323 and 352 IPC. Upon submission of the charge sheet, charges under Sections 147 IPC, 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, 325 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 336 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and 504 IPC were framed against the accused persons, namely Kunwar Singh, Manger Singh, Hukum Singh, Veer Singh, Shoorveer Singh, Prem Singh, Sovan Singh, Teg Singh, Kunwar Singh s/o Narayan Singh, Sundar Singh, Darmiyan Singh, Soorat Singh, Bag Singh and Raghbeer Singh on 05.04.1994.
(2.) Pw 1 Sunder Singh (injured), PW 2 Bisan Dei (eyewitness, hostile), PW 3 Doctor P.P.Ratoori (Medical Officer), PW 4 Head Constable Dalveer Singh, PW 5 Narendra Singh (injured), PW 6 Ashok Kumar (eyewitness) and PW 7 Doctor S.K. Gupta (radiologist) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons, in which they said that the prosecution witnesses were telling a lie. Most of the accused persons, in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. said that they were doing shramdan in the school. PW 1 Sunder Singh wanted to grab the property of the school and therefore, he committed mar peet with them. It was said that PW 1 Sunder Singh brought the criminal law into motion in order to save him. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tehri Garhwal, vide judgment and order dated 25.08.2001, exonerated accused persons of the charges levelled against them. Aggrieved against the said judgment and order, present Government Appeal was preferred.
(3.) The facts, to which there is no dispute, are that two cross cases were filed by the rival parties. One was registered as case crime no. 3 of 1992 and the another was criminal complaint case no. 64 of 2000, captioned as Kunwar Singh vs. Sunder Singh and others. In criminal case no. 64 of 2000, accused persons, namely, Sunder Singh, Narendra Singh and Balbir Singh were put to trial for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. They were exonerated of the allegations levelled against them vide judgment and order dated 25.08.2001. The judgment under appeal was also delivered on the same day i.e. on 25.08.2001. Keeping in view the number of injuries and nature of injuries as were sustained by the injured persons viz. Sunder Singh and Narender Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate held that the accused persons Kunwar Singh and others were the aggressor. Learned Magistrate discarded the evidence on the ground that PW 1 Sunder Singh and PW 5 Narendra Singh were father and son and were, therefore, related witnesses. Hon'ble Apex Court has held in scores of rulings that the testimony of related witnesses should not be rejected out rightly. The Courts below are sounded with a note of caution that the testimony of related witnesses should be examined with due care and caution. If the evidence tendered by the prosecution in the instant case is adjudged from this point of view, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the accused persons assaulted the informant and other injured and were clearly the aggressors. Added to the same, there is evidence of an independent witness, namely, PW 6 Ashok Kumar, who not only supported the prosecution story, but lend assurance to the prosecution version.;


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