Decided on June 25,2013

State of Uttaranchal And Anr. Respondents


Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. - (1.) PRESENT criminal revision was filed against the judgment and order dated 05.09.2006, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal in State v. Bhal Chandra Singh, in criminal case No. 2081 of 2001, whereby the accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The revisionist Roshan Singh, after taking recourse to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., got an FIR registered against the accused/respondent No. 2. After the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 504 & 506 IPC. Charge was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW 1 Roshan Singh, PW 2 Dhirendra, PW 3 Bhupendra, PW 4 Dabal Singh Rawat, PW 5 Jagmohan Singh and PW 6 Ram Dayal were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused in which he said that he has been falsely implicated in the case. DW 1 Heera Lal was examined in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal exonerated the accused of the charges levelled against him, vide impugned judgment and order dated 5th September, 2006. Aggrieved against the impugned order, present criminal revision was preferred by the informant -revisionist.
(2.) THE incident allegedly took place on 23.09.2001, at 5:30 p.m. in village Kund. The informant Roshan Singh was alleged to have surrounded by the accused, who hurled abuses at him and threatened him with dire consequences. Simple injuries were stated to have been sustained by the informant Roshan Singh. Learned CJM found that there were material discrepancies and material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Learned Court below was of the view that the prosecution witnesses did not support the first information report version, although they gave evidence in support of the informant Roshan Singh. There was great deviation in the contents of the first information report and in the testimonies rendered by the prosecution witnesses. The letter purportedly written by the accused was not sent to the handwriting expert for comparison. PW 1, in his complaint, alleged that an altercation took place between the informant and the accused, whereas, in his testimony, he said that the accused gave him the blow of lathi No independent witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution. Those, who were examined, were interested witnesses. PW 1 Roshan Singh was the complainant, who proved his complaint (Ext. Ka -3), PW 2 Dhirrendra Singh was said to be the eyewitness, PW 3 Bhupendra Singh was the postman, who proved Ext. Ka -2, PW 4 Dabal Singh Rawat was the patti patwari and PW 5 Jagmohan Singh said that Ext. Ka -1 and Ext. Ka -2 were in the handwriting of Bhal Chandra. Learned Court below held that the prosecution was not able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, for no unjust reason. There is no illegality in the impugned order. No interference is thus called for in the Judgment and Order passed by the learned CJM, Pauri Garhwal. Criminal Revision filed by the informant -revisionist Roshan Singh is devoid of merit and is, therefore dismissed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.