BALBEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-1-27
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on January 04,2013

Balbeer Singh and Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. - (1.) COMPLAINANT Bahadur Singh wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka -1) to Officer In -charge, PS Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, on 04.07.2003, at 8:30 a.m., enumerating the facts contained therein that his daughter Rajvinder Kaur was married to Resham Singh of village Jagannathpur. A dispute of land was going on between Resham Singh and his brother Balbeer Singh. Gurnam Singh alias Gyani and Sardool Singh were on the side of Balbeer Singh. Informant's son Nishan Singh was supporting Resham Singh. Accused persons were inimical to Nishan Singh. On 03.07.2003, Nishan Singh and his wife Resham Kumar went to meet Resham Singh. They proceeded from the house of Resham Singh at 5:00 p.m. to their house. Sardool Singh invited informant's son (Nishan Singh and Resham Kaur) to his home. Accused Gurnam Singh alias Gyani and Balbeer Singh were present there. Gurnam Singh, Sardool Singh and Balbeer picked up a quarrel with Resham Singh over the piece of land. Nishan Singh and Resham Kaur came back to home. On the selfsame day, at 8:30 p.m., informant's son Nishan Singh took the licensed gun of the informant and went to Jagannathpur. Nishan Singh apprehended that the accused persons might pick up quarrel with his jija (brother -in -law) Resham Singh. (Whether the victim reached Resham Singh's house or not, was not disclosed in the FIR). On 04.07.2003, Resham Singh made a phone call to the informant in the morning that Nishan Singh's dead body was lying on the road. Informant reached Kunda -Hariyawala Road. Mohd. Sabir and Mohd. Umar told the informant that Gurnam Singh, Sardool Singh and Balbeer Singh murdered his (informant's) son. Mohd. Umar and Mohd. Sabir also told the informant that in the previous night (i.e. 03.07.2003) at 11:30 p.m. when Mohd. Sabir and Mohd. Umar heard the sound of fire and came on the place of occurrence, accused persons were transporting the dead body and motorcycle of the victim in a tractor trolley. The dead body was found near a field of Chen Singh. On the basis of said complaint (Ext. Ka -1), chik FIR (Ext. Ka -4) was registered in the PS concerned as regards the offences punishable under Sections 302/201 IPC, an entry whereof was made in G.D.(Ext. Ka -5).
(2.) ON the basis of said first information report, which was registered as case crime No. 609/2003, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC in PS Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, the investigation began. PW 10 Vijendra Pal Singh Yadav started investigation on 04.07.2003. He conducted inquest, inspected the place of occurrence, prepared site plan, collected simple soil and blood stained soil and sent the dead body for postmortem. After completing investigation, PW 10 submitted charge -sheet (Ext. Ka -22) against the accused -appellants Balbeer Singh, Sardool Singh and Gurnam Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC on 16.08.2003. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were framed against the accused -appellants Balbeer Singh, Sardool Singh and Gurnam Singh, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As many as 10 prosecution witnesses, namely, PW 1 Bahadur Singh, PW2 Sabir Hussain, PW 3 Mohd. Umar, PW 4 Jaspal Kaur, PW 5 Resham Singh, PW 6 C.P.Singh, PW 7 Dr. J.K.Goyal, PW 8 Rajendra Singh, PW 9 Amit Kumar and PW 10 V.P.S. Yadav, were examined on behalf of prosecution. Statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were taken, in which they denied the allegations and said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court convicted accused -appellants Balbeer Singh, Sardool Singh and Gurnam Singh for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC. Each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, in default of which, they were required to undergo one year's further imprisonment in connection with the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Each of appellants was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years in relation to the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence, present criminal appeal was preferred.
(3.) INFORMANT (complainant) entered appearance in the witness box as PW 1. In his examination -in -chief, he said that he filed the complaint (Ext. Ka -1). PW 1 also proved the contents of his complaint. He was not the eyewitness.;


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