STATE Vs. HASSIN AND TWO OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Hassin And Two Others
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Pw1 Kiran Singh lodged a complaint to Circle Officer, Haldwani, District-Nainitial on 28.03.1991, against Hassin, Movin and Yasin, which was registered as Case Crime No. 248 of 1991, under Section 307 of I.P.C. . The incident took place on 28.03.1991 at 7.30 p.m. The distance between the place of occurrence and the concerned police station was approx one kilometer and the first information report was lodged within one hour, therefore, there appears to be no delay in lodging the first information report.
(2.) After the investigation, a charge sheet under Section 307 of I.P.C. was submitted against the accused persons. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it s case, charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 of I.P.C. was framed against the accused-respondents, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(3.) Pw1 Kiran Singh (father of the victim), PW2 Pooran Lal (formal witness), PW3 Head Constable Nandan Singh (who prepared the chick F.I.R.), PW4 Ravindra Kunwar Singh (victim), PW5 Dr. P.D. Pandey (who medically examined the victim), PW6 Dr. J.S. Pangti (radiologist), PW7 Sub Inspector Shyam Singh (investigation officer) and PW8 Dr. Virendra Dixit (E.N.T. Surgeon) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. DW1 Abdul Rashid was examined in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge/3rd F.T.C., Nainital exonerated the accused persons of the charge levelled against them, vide judgment and order dated 06.10.2001. Aggrieved against the said judgment and order, present criminal appeal was preferred by the State.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.