DIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
LAWS(UTN)-2013-5-146
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on May 16,2013

Dil Singh Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) A first information report was lodged by one Prem Singh on 1st June, 2000, at 10:15 a.m., in Dharasu Dunda, District Uttarkashi, against the accused (revisionist) Dil Singh, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 354 and 452 IPC. The occurrence was alleged to have taken place on 30.05.2000, at 4:00 p.m. The distance between the place of occurrence and the PS concerned was 15 kilometers and there was explainable delay, therefore, it is held that the delay in lodging the first information report is explained.
(2.) The informant Prem Singh wrote the complaint (Ext. Ka-2), on the basis of which chik FIR (Ext. Ka-4) was lodged enumerating the facts contained therein that on 30.05.2000 when his daughter Sangeeta was all alone in the house and the informant had gone to plough fields, accused outraged the modesty of his daughter. When the informant was coming back to his house after ploughing the fields, at 4:00 p.m., Hazar Singh and Soorveer Singh were also with him. When the informant reached near his house, he saw that the room was bolted from inside and his daughter was screaming. As soon as the informant pushed and opened the door of his house, he found that the accused Dil Singh was outraging the modesty of his daughter. As rear door of the house was open, the accused fled away no sooner he saw the informant along with Hazar Singh and Soorveer Singh. Sangeeta was crying and she tried to save herself. Dil Singh was a mischievous person. Since, son of the informant was unwell and he was taken to doctor, therefore, the informant could not lodge the report on 31.05.2000. Thus, criminal law was set into motion at the instance of Prem Singh. After the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-revisionist in respect of the selfsame offences. Charges were framed by learned Magistrate against the accused-revisionist as regard offences punishable under Sections 354 and 452 IPC, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Five witnesses, namely, PW 1 Prem Singh (informant), PW 2 Soorveer Singh, PW 3 Hazar Singh, PW 4 Sangeeta (victim) and PW 5 Shiv Singh (I.O.) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was put to the accused-revisionist, in reply he said that he has been falsely implicated in this case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Magistrate convicted Dil Singh (accused-revisionist) for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 452 IPC. The accused-revisionist (Dil Singh) was sentenced to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in respect of offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo 18 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- in respect of offence punishable under Section 452 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the said judgment and order, dated 5th April, 2002, an appeal was preferred before the Session Court. Learned Sessions Judge too, after considering the evidence on record, held the accused revisionist guilty of the offences complained of against him. The criminal appeal was dismissed on 25th June, 2005. The judgment rendered by the learned Magistrate was affirmed. Aggrieved against the order dated 25th June, 2005 of learned Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi, present Criminal Revision was preferred by the accused-revisionist.
(3.) PW 4 Sangeeta (victim) was deaf and dumb. Although she appeared before the trial court on 14.08.2001, but her testimony could not be recorded.;


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