Ashok Ram v. State Of Uttarakhand

complainant-Naresh Ram, lodged an FIR in the police station against the accused person-appellant bearing FIR No.01 of 2005, under Sections 326, 308, 427, 504 and 506 IPC.

4. On the basis of above complaint, a chick FIR was registered and investigation was started and after inspecting the alleged spot of incident, medical report, examining the witnesses and arresting the accused person-appellant, a charge-sheet under Sections 326, 308, 427, 504 and 506 IPC was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, who finding it fit to be tried by Court of Sessions committed it. Learned Sessions Judge after going through records and hearing both the parties, framed charges under Sections 308 and 506 IPC, which were read over and explained to the accused person-appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses i.e. PW-1 Kishan Prasad (injured), PW-2 Dr. J.S. Nabiyal, PW-3 Dr. Vipin Chandra Tripathi, PW-4 Naresh Ram (complainant) and PW-5 Prem Singh Dhami and substantiate the charges against the appellant.

6. PW-3 Dr. J.S. Nabiyal, who examined the injured PW-1 Kishan Prasad, found that the injured was conscious, but his physical condition was not good; his 2 blood pressure was 100/70 m.m., h.g. and found the following injuries on the person of injured, as explained by him in his evidence before the learned trial court:

3. “1. There was a deep bruise on the right side of the head in the forehead, which was 2.5 cm X 1 cm in size. It was reddish brown in colour and was slightly swollen and painful. There were two lacerated wounds on the back and outside of the left upper arm, size 0.5 Cm X 0.5 cm. The colour was reddish brown. The margins were irregular. Escape formation was formed. Along with this wound, there was a contusion on the same side, it was swollen and painful. There was a groaning sound in the contusion. Irregularity was felt. The size of the contusion was 4 cm X 4 cm. It was in the middle part of the upper arm. Left elbow with a scratched contusion, its size was 2.5 cm X 0.5 cm. It was swollen and bruised. The colour was red and brownish. Lacerated wound in right upper arm, size 1 cm X 0.5 cm, margin irregular, colour red brownish. Pain, lacerated wound in elbow with contusion, size 1 cm X 0.5 cm colour red brownish, margin was irregular. There was a scratched contusion on the front part of right arm, size 3.5 cm X 1 cm colour red brownish. There was a bruise on the lower part of the right thigh and right knee. Size 3 cm X 0.5 cm. 2. Size 3.5 cm X 0.5 cm, it was brown and reddish. There was a lacerated wound in right knee, size 5 cm X 0.5 cm, colour brown red, margin was irregular, Escape formation was found. Lacerated wound in lower part of right leg measuring 2.5 cm X irregular, colour red brownish, Escape 0.5 cm, margin formation was found.

10. There was a contusion in the bone on the outside of the right leg with swelling and pain. Swelling size 3.5 cm X 2.5 cm. 11. There was a contusion in left leg with swelling and pain, size

12. 5 cm X 3 cm. In the middle part of left leg, there was a small lacerated and contusion 1 cm X 0.5 cm. Margin irregular, colour red brownish with swelling and pain. The crackling and irregularity of the bones persisted in this area.

13. Left knee had two-three scratches, measuring 3 cm X 0.5 cm.

2. 3.5 cm X 0.5 cm. Colour red brownish.

14. Small lacerated wound on the lower part of left thigh, size 0.5 cm X 0.7 cm, margin irregular, Escape formation of red brown colour was formed.”

7. During trial, PW-1, who was the injured, on oath deposed that when he objected the trespassing of the appellant’s cattle on his field, the appellant got furious and started beating him with blunt side of Badiyad, which has caused serious injuries to his body. He also explained that non-availability of palanquin was the 3 cause of delay in getting admitted to the hospital. He categorically stated in his evidence that he was attacked with blunt side of the Badiyad (mYVs cfM;kM ls ekjk).

8. PW-2- Dr. J.S. Nabiyal, who was the doctor examining the injured on oath deposed that he was working in emergency department of Government Hospital Pithoragarh on that day; the injured person was brought to the hospital by his younger brother. He testified that although injured has not consciousness, but he was in a bad state having multiple injuries all over his body. He further deposed that if the injured wasn’t brought to the hospital within time, the injuries could have resulted into his death. He exhibited and proved the medical report as Ext.Ka-1 and found as many as 14 injuries on the person of the injured PW-1 Kishan Prasad.

9. PW-3 Dr. Vipin Chandra Tripathi, who was the Radiologist, on oath deposed that he had prepared the X- ray reports and testified the fracture in limbs of the injured.

10. PW-4-Naresh Ram, who was complainant, happens to be the real brother of injured/victim on oath deposed that he is the eye witness of the present case and whole incident occurred in his presence. He further stated that at the time of incident, he was working in a nearby field; on hearing hue and cry of his brother, he rushed to the spot; on reaching there, he found his brother lying in the ground who had suffered grievous injuries. He thereafter rushed him to the hospital. He further submitted on oath that he gave report of the incident to Patti Patwari (Revenue Police Inspector) and proved the FIR as Ext.Ka-3. On cross-examination, his evidence remained unimpeached. 4 After prosecution evidences, the statement of

11. appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, he stated that he was innocent and was falsely implicated due to enmity. No defence witness was produced.

12. After conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted as stated Para-2 of this judgment.

13. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the appellant that there is delay in lodging the FIR, which raises serious doubts over entire prosecution story. He also submitted that despite variations in evidences of witnesses, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant. He further submitted that weapon of assault was not recovered by the police.

14. It is also argued by learned counsel for the appellant that essential conditions of culpability under Sections 308 and 506 IPC weren’t established by the prosecution. Therefore, the learned trial court committed error in convicting the appellant.

15. Per contra, learned State Counsel supported the case of the prosecution and submits that the injuries was serious and was life threatening and the Doctor, who has examined the injured, has also deposed in its statement that if the injured wasn’t brought to the hospital within time, the injuries could have resulted into his death. Since, he was attacked with blunt side of the Badiyad, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 308 IPC.

16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that learned trial court has meticulously dealt with all the evidences 5 available at the trial. The judgment rendered by learned trial court duly explains the presence of witnesses on the alleged spot of incident, it also deals with allegation of contradiction in statements of witnesses and also appreciates the fact of delay in lodging the FIR. So far as non-recovery of the weapon of assault is concerned, the benefit of such lacuna in the investigation cannot be given to the appellant, as the ocular evidence on record is unimpeachable.

17. In this view of the matter, this Court opines that in a case in which the victim was suffered 14 injuries, few of which are even life threatening, it will not be apt to interfere with a well reasoned judgment and order passed by learned trial court, as it may lead to erosion of confidence of public in judicial system. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 04.07.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No.54 of 2005 State Vs. Ashok Ram, whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated in Para 2 above, is hereby affirmed.

18. Let a copy of this judgment, along with the TCR, be transmitted to the Court concerned information/compliance. (Pankaj Purohit, J.)

03.04.2025 PN/- PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432 f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F92 29D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI 6