GYAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-7-156
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 16,2013

GYAN CHAND Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) A charge-sheet against the accused was submitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 332, 353, 504 of IPC. Charge was framed against the accused for the selfsame offences. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. Prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Rafat, PW2 Head Constable - T.P. Bhagwan Singh, PW3 T.P. Virendra Singh, PW4 Chintamani, PW5 Prakash Chand, PW6 Constable Chandan Lal and PW7 Constable Raghuvir Singh. The injury reports of Virendra Singh (Ext. Ka-1) and Prakash Chand (Ext. Ka-2), complaint (Ext. Ka-3), chik FIR (Ext. Ka-4), copy of G.D. (Ext. Ka-5), site plan (Ext. Ka-6) and chargesheet (Ext. Ka-7) were proved by the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., to which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 332, 353 and 504 of IPC and was sentenced appropriately, vide judgment and order dated 12.07.2004. Aggrieved against said judgment and order, criminal appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi, who dismissed the same, vide impugned judgment and order dated 23rd April 2007. Aggrieved against impugned judgment and order, present criminal revision was preferred by the convict-revisionist.
(2.) Pw2 H.C. 16 T.P. Bhagwan Singh wrote a complaint to police station, Kotwali, Uttarkashi on 22.05.1999, enumerating the allegations contained therein that on the selfsame day, he alongwith PW3 Constable Virendra Singh were deputed to control the traffic near bus stand. At around 10 P.M., several vehicles arrived in Uttarkashi, which created congestion of traffic. In the meantime, the accused came alongwith his friends in an Ambassador car. Accused started assaulting the bus driver and conductor of bus no. UP07-C / 7162. PW2 and PW3 stopped him from doing so. Accused assaulted PW3. Accused gave him two or three slaps. Accused asked PW3, as to who was he to speak to him PW2 tried to intervene, but the accused caught hold of him. Accused not only misbehaved with the constables attending on their duties, but also assaulted them and deterred the public servants from discharging from duties. Accused also caused hurt to the public servants in the discharge of their duties. PW4, PW5 and many a people assembled on the place of occurrence, who saw the incident. The incident was reported to police station, Kotwali, an entry of which was made in the G.D. on the selfsame day at 10:30 P.M. After investigation of the case, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 332, 353, 504 of IPC.
(3.) Prosecution led the evidence through PW2, PW3 and PW4. PW2 supported the prosecution story and said that on 22.05.1999, when he was deputed to control the traffic and PW3 was with him, there was congestion near the bus stand around 10:00 P.M. Accused came in his Ambassador car alongwith his friends. The bus driver, whose bus was parked there, was assaulted by the accused. An altercation and scuffle took place between them. PW2 and PW3 made an attempt to stop the accused, but accused gave 2-3 slaps on the face of PW3. Accused asked, who was he to stop him When PW2 tried to intervene, accused caught hold of him. PW2 also proved his complaint (Ext. Ka-3). In the cross-examination, PW2 said that the congestion of traffic was not because of the bus, which was parked there. He denied the suggestion that the congestion of traffic was because of carelessness on his part and on the part of PW3. The uniform of PW2 was not torn. PW3 sustained injuries. PW3 was taken to the hospital and was medically examined.;


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