Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. -
(1.) PW 2 Pravendra Prasad wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka -1) on 15.12.1996 to Patti Patwari, Bamoth, against eight named accused, which complaint was registered on the selfsame day, at 04:00 P.M. The incident allegedly took place on 14.12.1996, at 04:45 P.M. The distance between the place of incident and the police station concerned was 32 kms. and hence there appeared to be no delay in lodging the FIR. After the investigation of the case, a charge -sheet was submitted against six accused persons, namely, Madho Singh, Jitendra Singh, Pancham Singh, Laxman Singh, Kalam Singh and Bhagat Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 147, 504, 506, 120B 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 147 of IPC and Section 307 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC was framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Bhagat Singh died during the trial and hence case against him stood abated. PW 1 Sateshwar Prasad, PW 2 Pravendra Prasad, PW 3 Dr. Udai Singh Rajput, PW 4 Lalita Prasad (Medical Officer), PW 5 Ashok Kumar Pujari (Patwari) and PW 6 Kalam Singh (Patwari) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was adduced in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court, i.e. Sessions Judge, Chamoli, vide judgment and order dated 08.01.2002, convicted accused Pancham Singh, Madho Singh, Laxman Singh, Kalam Singh and Jitender Singh under Section 147 of IPC and Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC. Each one of the convict was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month under Section 147 of IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo one months' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - each. In default of payment of fine, each one of the convict was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. It was also directed that if the fine was realized a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - each from each convict (total Rs. 5,000/ -) be paid to the injured as compensation. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order, present criminal appeal was preferred.
(2.) ACCUSED Madho Singh is reported to have died in the year 2011, as per the letter received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli. The criminal appeal filed on behalf of appellant Madho Singh is, therefore, abated.
(3.) PW 1 supported the prosecution story. He stated that he deals in the business of selling iron rods and cement in Gochar. On 14.12.1996, at 04:30 P.M., when he was returning from Gochar to his house situated at Bamoth, accused Laxman Singh and Pancham Singh met him at Chatwa Peepal bridge. Both the accused followed him. Accused Kalam Singh and Bhagat Singh also met him on his way to his village. All the four accused persons assaulted PW 1. Accused persons called Jitendra Singh, Madho Singh, Dhan Singh and Rakesh Singh, who also assaulted PW 1. Accused Jitendra Singh was armed with an iron rod and accused Madho Singh was having lathi in his hands. All the accused persons assaulted PW 1 with iron rod, lathi and stones. PW 1 sustained injuries on his forehead. No public witness was present when accused persons assaulted PW 1. When the incident was over, Lalita Prasad (PW 4) came running to the place of incident alongwith his son, but by that time the assailants fled away. Accused persons had the intention to kill PW 1. PW 4 and his son took PW 1 to Gochar Hospital, whereupon PW 1 was given medical treatment. PW 1's son (PW 2) lodged report of the said incident to the Patwari. Accused persons were inimical to PW 1 over the election of Gram Pradhan. Bloodstained wearing apparels were given by PW 1 to the pharmacist of Gochar Hospital. The Pharmacist handed over those clothes to the Patwari. PW 1 was cross -examined, but nothing came in his cross -examination to suggest that he was telling a lie. In other words, nothing has come in the cross -examination of PW 1 to suspect his testimony. The testimony of PW 1 was acceptable.
Pw 2 also supported prosecution story and stated that on 14.12.1996, at around 04:30 P.M., when his father was returning from his shop to his house, accused persons assaulted him. According to Pw 2, Pw 1 sustained grievous injuries. Pw 2 took Pw 1 to the hospital, whereupon his injuries were examined. On 15.12.1996, Pw 2 wrote a complaint to the Patwari. Pw 2 also proved complaint (Ext. Ka -1) and proved the contents of the same. Pw 2 also stated that his father remained admitted at Gochar Hospital for 11 -12 days. Pw 2 too was cross -examined, much to the discomfiture of the defence.;