RAMESHWARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
LAWS(UTN)-2013-8-72
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on August 01,2013

RAMESHWARI DEVI Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Upon Filing Of An Application By Informant Smt. Rameshwari Devi Under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. On 29.08.2003, Criminal Law Was Set Into Motion. After The Investigation, A Charge-Sheet Under Sections 323, 506 And 354 Ipc Was Filed Against The Accused. He Was Summoned To Face The Trial. Charge Was Framed Against Him For The Offences Punishable Under Sections 354, 323 And 506 Ipc, To Which He Pleaded Not Guilty And Claimed Trial.
(2.) Pw 1 Smt. Rameshwari Devi, Pw 2 Guman Singh, Pw 3 Doctor M.P.Singh, Pw 4 Laxman Singh, Pw 5 Raghubeer Singh Rawat And Pw 6 Km. Varsha Were Examined On Behalf Of The Prosecution. Incriminating Evidence Was Put To The Accused Under Section 313 Cr.Pc., In Reply To Which He Said That He Was Falsely Implicated In The Case. No Oral Evidence Was Given In Defence. Documentary Evidence Was However, Given In Defence. After Considering The Evidence On Record, Learned Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal, Vide Impugned Order Dated 30Th May, 2008 Exonerated The Accused Of The Charges Levelled Against Him. Aggrieved Against The Impugned Judgment And Order, Present Criminal Revision Was Preferred By The Informant Revisionist.
(3.) According To The Prosecution Story, The Informant-Revisionist And Accused-Respondent Were The Covillagers. On 26.08.2003, At 11:30 P.M., The Revisionist Was Washing Her Clothes. Accused-Respondent Wanted Precedence Over Her In Washing The Clothes. The Revisionist Opposed The Same. Infuriated Accused-Respondent Assaulted Revisionist With Kicks And Fists. He Also Pushed Her Into The Water Tank. Her Clothes Were Torn. Accused-Respondent Took Away Some Of The Ornaments Of The Revisionist. He Also Threatened Her With Dire Consequence. The Informantrevisionist Moved An Application Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On 29.08.2003. In Her Examination-In-Chief, She Supported The Prosecution Story, But Also Said In The Cross- Examination That She Went To Patwari To Lodge The Report, But Patwari Was Not Available. She Gave The Report To S.D.M. And Also Got Herself Medically Examined. She Proved Her Report Ext. Ka-1.;


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