MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. -
(1.) PRESENT Criminal Appeal has been filed by accused appellant Mohan Singh against the judgment and order dated 6.8.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli (Gopeshwar) in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2006 State Vs. Mohan Singh, whereby accused appellant Mohan Singh has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) for life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 20,000/ - and sentenced under Section 394 of IPC for live years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/ -. In default of payment of fine under the said Sections, he was directed to undergo further two years' simple imprisonment and one year simple imprisonment respectively. PW 1 Amar Singh wrote a complaint on 10.5.2006 to Patti Patwari Circle Taiwan, Tehsil Tharali (Chamoli) regarding the death of his father Gabbar Singh. According to informant Amar Singh, his father Gabbar Singh went to attend a marriage procession along with his horse on 6.5.2006. When he was returning from Barat along with his horse, his father (Gabbar Singh) was found dead on 7.5.2006 in suspicious circumstances. An information to this effect was given by Amar Singh to Patti Patwari Taiwan. Dead body of the deceased was sent for conducting inquest and, thereafter, for post mortem. Since the horse was missing from the spot, Amar Singh's brother Rakesh and his friends enquired about the same in the neighbouring villages, when one Mohan Singh informed Rakesh and his friends that in the morning of 7.5.2006, Mohan Singh Gosain, a resident of Village Talwari, had come with an almond colour horse in the house of Mohan Singh. On the query of Mohan Singh, Mohan Singh Gosain told him that he has brought the said horse from Kedar Nath and wanted Mohan Singh to purchase the horse, but Mohan Singh did not. Next day, Mohan Singh Gosain went towards Khansar. On getting this information, Rakesh Singh and his friends went to Khansar in search of the missing horse, but the villagers of Khansar denied having seen any horse. Rakesh and his friends disclosed the same to Amar Singh. All of them suspected that Gabbar Singh was killed by Mohan Singh, who has fled away with the horse.
(2.) ON the basis of the said FIR, investigation began. After the inquest was prepared, the dead body was sent for post mortem. The statements of the witnesses were taken by the Investigating Officer, who effected the arrest of the accused and, after being satisfied with the fact that the accused committed an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) submitted a charge sheet against the accused before the court of Magistrate having jurisdiction. When the prosecution opened its case, charges for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 were framed against accused Mohan Singh. As many as nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. They were - PW 1 Amar Singh, PW 2 Dr. R.S. Sheepal, PW 3 Raghubeer Singh, PW 4 Man Singh, PW 5 Rakesh Singh, PW 6 Raghubeer Giri, PW 7 Mohan Giri, PW 8 Bhupati Raj Kumar and PW 9. Himmat Singh. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused, who said that since his uncle Harak Singh and cousin Raghubeer Singh were inimical to him, they falsely implicated him in connivance with Rakesh. DW 1 Raghubeer Singh was examined in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned court below convicted accused Mohan Singh of the offense punishable under Sections 302 and 394 of IPC and was sentenced appropriately. Aggrieved against the said conviction and sentence, present criminal appeal was preferred on behalf of the appellant.
(3.) PROSECUTION led the evidence through PW 3, PW 4, PW 5, PW 6 and PW 7.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.