HARISH CHANDRA SATI Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Harish Chandra Sati and Anr.
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. -
(1.) A first information report was lodged by Smt. Rajan Sati against Harish Chand Sati and Smt. Rajni Sai, before the patti patwari Pant Kotli, Ranikhet, District Almora, on 23.04.2000, in respect of offences punishable under Section 323, 307, 504 and 506 IPC. After the investigation, a charge sheet for the selfsame offences was filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial commenced and prosecution opened it's case, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC were framed against the applicants Harish Chandra Sati and Rajni Sati, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW 1 Sanjay Pathak, PW 2 Rajan Sati, PW 3 Smt. Rekha Pathak, PW 4 Doctor Vipin Chandra, PW 5 Damodar Pande and PW 6 Doctor Yogesh Chandra Sharma were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record the accused persons were convicted under Sections 323 and 504 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 504 IPC and three months' imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/ - in relation to offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 30th June, 2005, present criminal appeal was preferred. Prosecution led the evidence through PW 2 Rajni Sati. PW 2 Rajan Sati supported the prosecution story and proved the contents of his complaint (Ext. Ka -1). On 23.04.2000, at 8:00 a.m., an altercation took place between Rekha Pathak and her neighbours Harish Chandra Sati and Smt. Rajni Sati. The altercation took place on the supply of water. Rajni Sati caught hold of Rekha Pathak and dragged her. Rajni Sati exported her husband to inflict a blow on Rekha Pathak. Harish Chandra Sati inflicted a blow of stone on the head of Rekha Pathak. Rekha Pathak was also assaulted by kicks and fists. She was also threatened with dire consequences. Rekha Pathak raised an alarm. Her minor children Sanjay and Himanshu came to call PW 2 Rajan Sati. When PW 2 went to the place of occurrence to see Rekha Pathak, she was in injured condition. Rekha Pathak was taken to hospital. She was referred to Civil Hospital at Ranikhet where Rekha Pathak was fighting for her life. PW 1 Sanjay Pathak, the son of the injured, also supported the prosecution story in his evidence. His name was mentioned in the first information report among the witnesses.
(2.) PW 3 Smt. Rekha Pathak (injured) came to the witness box and supported the entire prosecution story. She was cross -examined on behalf of the defence at length, but nothing came out in her cross -examination to suggest that she was telling a lie. The evidence tendered by PW 3 inspired confidence. Her evidence was supported by PW 1 and PW 2. PW 5 Damodar Pande was patti patwari of patti concerned. He was the investigating officer of the case, who after conducting the investigation submitted the charge sheet (Ext. Ka -5) against the accused persons. Pw 4 Doctor Vipin Chandra Tripathi was the Medical Officer, who examined the injured. Pw 4 proved his report (Ext. Ka -2) and found fracture on the nose of the injured. Pw 6 Dr. Yogesh Chandra Sharma found lacerated wound on left cheek and left nostril of the injured. She was bleeding profusely. Pw 6 also found lacerated wound on scalp near occipital protuberance. Pw 4 was of the opinion that the injuries No. 1 & 2 were caused by hard blunt object. Thus the evidence tendered by Pw 1, Pw 2 and Pw 3 was duly corroborated by the evidence of Pw 4 and Pw 6. Learned trial court has also appropriately dealt with the matter and came to the conclusion that the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 IPC were proved against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, for no unjust reason. No interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order so far as the conviction of the appellants is concerned.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants prayed that the appellants were not previous convicts. Simply the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 IPC read with Section 34 IPC were proved against the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants prayed that the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 be given to the appellants. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view that the victim and the appellants are the close relatives, it will be desirable in the fitness of things if the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is given to the appellants, but at the same time, it will be appropriate if appellant No. 2 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 8000/ - to injured Rekha Pathak.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.