SAJAN CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-1-74
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on January 02,2013

Sajan Chaudhary Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) In the instant case, Lakhi Ram died. In respect of the death of Lakhi Ram, a First Information Report was filed by Shiv Swaroop Dobhal (PW4). This First Information Report was written on 12 th September, 2006, but the same was lodged with the Police Station concerned on 13 th September, 2006 at 02:00 p.m. In the First Information Report, it was stated that, at the invitation of Vijay Singh (PW1), Lakhi Ram left his house around 02:00 p.m. of 11 th September, 2006; thereafter, he did not return; on inquiry made by the wife of Lakhi Ram, namely, Shashi Devi (PW6), PW1 informed her that, in the evening of 11 th September, 2006, Lakhi Ram left Chhara before he (PW1) left Chhara; later on, in the morning, the dead body of Lakhi Ram was discovered; and, accordingly, the First Information Report is being filed. The dead body was, thereafter, recovered by the investigation team from a gorge. The dead body was sent for post mortem, which was conducted by Dr. Manoj Badoni (PW7). PW7 found that Lakhi Ram received three lacerated wound injuries; one of them was on the head, the other by the side of eye; and the last below the chin. PW7 opined that the injury has been caused by hard and blunt object and the cause of death is ante mortem injuries. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for offences punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34, and Section 201, read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code against the accused appellant and another person, namely, Laxman. At or before filing of the charge-sheet, Laxman could not be arrested, nor Laxman surrendered, and, accordingly, the trial of the case, insofar as Laxman is concerned, was separated.
(2.) In course of trial, PW1 held out that deceased Lakhi Ram was a driver. He also held out that he was interested to buy a car from Jodh Singh (PW2). On 10 th September, 2006, he had an appointment with PW2 to see the car, but he could not meet PW2. On the next date, he met PW2, when PW2 had shown him the car, which was verified by deceased Lakhi Ram. Deceased Lakhi Ram, PW1, appellant Sajan Chaudhary and Laxman rode the car, which was being driven by PW2. It was stated that, after they had taken the ride, a tentative decision was taken by PW1 to purchase the vehicle. It was, then, decided to celebrate by consuming liquor and mutton. For that purpose, PW1 gave a sum of Rs. 500/- to Laxman. In order to purchase liquor, Laxman went to Chhara, when he was followed by PW1, PW2, appellant herein as well as Lakhi Ram, the victim. At Chhara, liquor was found and three bottles of that were consumed by five people with the mutton supplied by Laxman. At about that time, victim Lakhi Ram called the appellant and Laxman as Gorkhas. To that, they retorted and said that they are not Gorkhas, but Chaudharies. Realising his mistake, victim Lakhi Ram apologized for calling them Gorkhas and held out that, in future, he will never call them Gorkha. At that, appellant and Laxman left the place for going to their village. Victim Lakhi Ram, PW1, appellant and Laxman belonged to the same village. About 1-2 minutes later, victim Lakhi Ram also left and he was seen walking behind the appellant and Laxman on his way to home, at the same village. This testimony of PW1 was supported by PW2. Kishori Lal (PW3), in course of deposing before the court, also supported the contentions of PW1 and PW2.
(3.) PW6, in addition to what has been stated above as regards victim Lakhi Ram leaving on 11 th September, 2006 with PW1 and not returning thereafter, added that, about 2 years' back, there was some kind of a quarrel between victim Lakhi Ram, on the one hand, and the appellant and Laxman, on the other, in regard to grazing of animals. PW3 stated that the appellant and Laxman were tenants in his house. He stated that, w.e.f. 12 th September, 2006, appellant and Laxman were not seen in their tenanted room. The said contention was also supported by PW6. In course of tendering evidence, PW7 stated that the injuries, that were suffered by victim Lakhi Ram, could also be received by reason of falling in a gorge.;


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