STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Vs. GIRISH CHANDRA AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
Girish Chandra And Another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) On 05.06.1998, at 07:30 P.M., an FIR was given by the one Kishan Singh Negi to police station Kotwali Almora against the accused persons. One Lalit Patwal was the scribe of the complaint. It was alleged in the FIR that on 05.06.1998, at 12:30 P.M., the informant (Shyam Narain Pandey) was busy in repair work of the pipeline near water tank. Puran Singh Bhandari also reached there. Accused-respondent Girish Chandra told the informant that he had already warned him not to undertake the repair work. He (Girish) said that he would kill him (informant). Mother of accused-respondent Girish Chandra, coaccused Madhavi Devi, also exhorted to kill the informant. Accused Girish Chandra fired upon the informant with a country made pistol with the intention to kill him. The fire struck the abdomen of the informant. He fell on the ground. Injured / informant was taken to Primary Health Center, Jaiti, but having found not proper medical facility there, the injured was taken to District Hospital, Almora. Informant requested the scribe to write the complaint in the hospital. The incident was seen by Kishan Chand Pandey and Puran Singh Bhandari. The accused persons were inimical to the injured-informant and therefore, Girish Chandra fired upon him (injured) with the country made pistol. Although case crime no. 0 of 1998 under Sections 307, 506 of IPC was registered in the police station, but since the incident took place within the patwari circle therefore, the same was transferred to revenue police and was subsequently registered as case crime no. 03 of 1998. Naib Tehsildar investigated the case. He went to the place of occurrence, prepared site plan, took the statement of the witnesses, took the injured to the Medical Officer and subsequently transferred the investigation to patwari of patwari circle concerned, who submitted chargesheet against both the accused persons in respect of offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. The Magistrate issued notice to the Investigating Officer and took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 506 of IPC vide order dated 21.04.2001. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, who framed charges under Sections 307, 506(II) of IPC against the accused persons on 06.08.2001, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
(2.) PW1 Shyam Narain Pandey, PW2 Kishan Chand Pandey, PW3 Ramesh Chandra, PW4 Dr. K.P. Kuniyal, PW5 Dr. Kamlesh Pandey, PW6 Patwari Trilochan Pandey and PW7 Naib Tehsildar Maya Dutt Joshi 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. Documentary evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, the accused persons were exonerated of the charges framed against them. Aggrieved against impugned judgment and order, present Government Appeal was preferred by the State.
(3.) Allegedly accused-respondent Girish Chandra fired on the injured / informant. Accusedrespondent Madhavi Devi, mother of accused Girish Chandra, exhorted him (Girish). The witnesses were related witnesses. It is not for the first time that the complainant lodged FIR against accused-respondents. Initially a chargesheet was submitted only in respect of offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, but somehow the cognizance was taken under Section 307 of IPC. A prima facie case against the accusedrespondents might be there in respect of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, but the case in respect of such offence was not established. It is an admitted fact that the accused-respondents were exonerated in one of the previous case filed by the complainant of this case, in which the accusedrespondents were exonerated by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora on 17.10.1998 (in case crime no. 272 of 1998).;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.