GANGA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
State of Uttaranchal and another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) A first information report was lodged by PW 1 Ganga Singh against the accused-respondent in respect of offences punishable under Sections 418 and 420 IPC, in PS Lohaghat, which was registered as case crime no. 130/1990. After the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-respondent in respect of selfsame offences. Accused was put to trial. After considering the evidence on record, accused Ghanshyam Sadija was exonerated of the charges levelled against him vide order dated 24.12.2003. Aggrieved against the impugned order, present criminal revision was filed by the informant /revisionist Ganga Singh.
(2.) A perusal of record reveals that PW 1 Ganga Singh (informant), PW 2 Dev Singh, PW 3 Mohan Singh, PW 4 Dr. K.S. Mehta were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The genuineness of the chik FIR and charge sheet was admitted by the learned counsel for the accused. After the prosecution evidence was over, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he said that the prosecution witnesses were telling a lie. A complaint was filed by PW 1 before the Magistrate on 25.08.1993.
The statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was taken. The Magistrate directed, vide order dated 28.06.1993, PS Loha Ghat to register the case.
Consequently, case crime no. 130 of 1993, under Sections 418 and 420 IPC was registered against accused on 11.10.1993, at 4:00 p.m. The incident took place in May, 1993. The complaint was filed in August, 1993 and the first information report was lodged in October, 1993. The complainant did not indicate the date of incident in the complaint. Neither the complainant lodged the report in time nor any explanation was offered to show as to what caused delay in lodging the first information report. In other words, five months' delay in lodging the FIR remains unexplained. Further, the complainant relied upon the photocopies of certain documents which were not admissible in evidence. X-ray reports did not reveal the details. It was difficult to connect those x-ray plates with the complainant.
(3.) It was said by the complainant that he gave Rs. 2500/- to the medical practitioner and thereafter, he also paid Rs. 2000/- for plastering. There was only an oral statement of the complainant (PW1). It was also said by the complainant that he went to the clinic of Doctor Karnatak for x-ray. No document was offered in support of the said contention. Doctor Karnatak was not examined by the prosecution. Although DW 2 Dev Singh and PW 3 Mohan Singh were examined, but their names were conspicuous by their absence in the complaint. The name of PW 3 Mohan Singh was not mentioned by the investigating officer in the charge sheet.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.