SHAKUNTALA AND TWO OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Shakuntala And Two Others
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) On the basis of a complaint filed by Smt. Shakuntala Devi (appellant herein), accused Manmohan Naithani was challand by the local police under Section 3 (1) (x) and Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Accused Manmohan faced the trial. Charges were framed against him. In order to prove the accused guilty of the charge, the prosecution examined three witnesses including the complainant PW 3 Shakuntala Devi. PW 3 did not support the prosecution story. She turned hostile. She stated that no such occurrence took place. Although, she admitted her signatures on the complaint (Ext. Ka-1), but she pleaded ignorance about the contents of the complaint.
(2.) On the basis of the evidence thus recorded, accused Manmohan was acquitted of the charges levelled against him vide order dated 14.06.2002 passed by learned Special Judge, Tehri Garhwal. A direction was, however, given to the Superintendent of Police, Tehri Garhwal to register a case against PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 (appellants herein) under Sections 182/193 IPC and investigate the case. In compliance of the said order of learned Special Judge, a case was registered against PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3, which action is under challenge before this Court.
(3.) When PW 1 and PW 2 entered into the witness box, they supported the prosecution story. PW 3 did not support the prosecution story from the very beginning. After recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he offered to produce the evidence in defence. PW 1 and PW 2 were again examined as DW 1 and DW 2. It was stated before the Court below that a compromise took place between the parties. Since PW 3 was not present when the compromise took place, therefore, she lodged the first information report out of ignorance.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.