G.S.N.Tripathi - (1.) ADDITIONAL Sessions Judge, Dehradun, vide his Judgment and order dated 22.8.79 has convicted the accused Vipin @ Prince, Vijay @ Pappu and Suresh on a charge under Section 304, Sub-Clause II, after acquitting them on the charge under Section 302, read with Section 34, I.P.C. All the three accused have been sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. The aforesaid judgment and order was passed in S.T. No. 119 of 78, State v. Vipin and others of the district of Dehradun.
(2.) THE case started on the basis of a written F.l.R. lodged by P.W. 8 Indra Prakash at P.S., dated 23.7.78 at 12.10 p.m. THE incident is said to have taken place on 22.7.78 around 9.30 p.m. behind the Hanuman temple. THE distance of the police station is hardly two furlongs from the place of occurrence. THE simple allegation in the F.l.R. is that the accused Vijay has done mar-pit with his son Sushil Kumar, causing him injuries. THE injured had been admitted in the hospital by accused Vipin Kumar Jain. The injured had been admitted to the District Hospital, Dehradun in the same night at 10.05 p.m. and had been examined by P.W. 3 Dr. Jakhmola. He had found the injuries as noted by the learned Sessions Judge at pages 3 and 4 of his judgment. Hence those injuries are not being repeated. In the opinion of the Doctor Jakhmola the condition of the patient was normal. His blood pressure and pulse rates were also normal. However, the patient was kept under observation. The injuries were fresh. Unfortunately, the patient died and postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. J. K. Gupta, P.W. 4 on 24.7.78. The ante-mortem injuries found by Dr. Gupta have also been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the body of his judgment. In his opinion, the injuries could have been caused by a blunt and pointed weapon and they could not normally result in the death. The investigation was taken in hands by P.W. 11 Sri R. S. Negi. After recording the statement of the witnesses, he prepared the site-plan. He also allegedly recovered the weapon from the accused Suresh Kumar (the theory of recovery has been disbelieved by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge at page 18 of his judgment in these words : "I am unable to place reliance upon this piece of evidence about the recovery of the screw driver under Section 27 of the Evidence Act". Therefore, I do not delve deep into this matter. After interrogating the witnesses, he laid the charge sheet before the court.
(3.) THE prosecution examined P.W.8 Sri Indra Prakash, the complainant, who happens to be the father of the deceased Sushil Kumar. He has deposed that on 22.7.78 when he returned from Saharanpur around 9.30 or 10 p.m., he learnt that the accused Vijay, Vipin and Suresh (appellants) had injured his son Sushil Kumar and Sushil Kumar was lying in the hospital. He went to the hospital. He saw his son in unconscious state. He himself became panicky and became busy in the treatment of his son. On 23.7.78, he reported the matter at the police station. Since he was confused, he could not tell the names of all the culprits. Not only this, he had washed the blood-stained clothes of his son (God knows what was the hurry for it). Later on these washed up clothes were handed over to the police. On the point of motive, he says that the accused Vijay had lent his pant to the deceased Sushil Kumar which the latter did not return despite repeated demands by the accused. All the three accused had pressed the demand for this and lastly they had threatened Sushil of dire consequences in case the pant was not returned. On the date of occurrence, he also learnt that on the pretext of showing picture, accused Suresh and Vipin had taken away his son Sushil Kumar.;