STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. DARSHAN SINGH
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 147, 148, 149, 302
- Arms Act, 1959 s. 25
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 161, 174, 313, 361, 378, 386
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 s. 145
- Constitution of India art. 136
Judgment
It is to be noted that in the FIR, ‘R’ is stated to have fired the shot which struck at the back of the deceased. No role has been attributed in the FIR to the two accused persons whereas when the evidence opened, PW1 has gone on to attribute specific overt acts to them also. While a FIR is not to be an encyclopaedia of all that transpired, the omission to mention about actual overt acts to the specific two accused, creates serious doubt about the version. Further, PW2 also stated that they had left the tractor at the spot and had not taken it to the Police Station to lodge the report as the dead body was on it. On the other hand, the site of the dead body is the paddy filed, according to PW5. The tractor is not referred to by PW5. [Paras 50 and 51][366-C-E]
As regards the deceased falling down on being shot at and assaulted, PW5 would state that PW1 did not tell him anything (apparently, in the 161 statement about the fact of the deceased falling down).[Para 52][366-F]
In the state of evidence, in this case otherwise, as discussed, particularly bearing in mind the nature of the limited jurisdiction this Court exercises qua the order of acquittal rendered by the High Court, the appellant has not made out a case in interfering with the impugned judgment of the High Court. [Para 57][367-G]
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.