Govind Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

The brief facts, as involved for consideration, in the present criminal revision is that, on 01.07.2001 at about 08:40 a.m., a complaint was registered by Smt. Geeta Devi with regards to the incident dated

30.06.2001, it was to the effect that she is a widow and is a permanent resident of village Chamariya. Since being a widow, she is said to have gone to her brother’s home. Her allegation was that the accused-revisionist herein i.e. Govind Singh, son of Mr. Varyan Singh, there was continuous rift among them in relation to a dispute pertaining to the land, which was continued for a considerable long time, they i.e. Govind Singh and his sister Nikki had assaulted Tota Ram, son of the complainant on 30.06.2001 by entering into the residence and assaulted her son by inflicting injuries by use of spade. It was her case also that his sister Nikki, who was also present and involved in the assault, despite of all the resistance, which was posed by the son of the complainant. The revisionist as well as his sister, the revisionist convict had assaulted the complainant’s son by using spade and as a consequence of assault thereto by the revisionist and his sister, it is alleged by the complainant that her son Tota Ram, suffered various injuries on the head, which is a vital part of the body, apart from it various other injuries were also suffered on the person of the son of the complainant. She has submitted in the complaint, which was registered before the police on ‐ 3 ‐

01.07.2001, that the neighbourers of the complainant, namely, Jasveer Singh, Pritam Singh after hearing the hue and cry caused because of the assault, they had visited the residence of the complainant and saved her son but in the meantime, the revisionist and his sister, had escaped from the places in question leaving her son Tota Ram in an injured state. Faced with said situation, it is the case of the complainant that the neighbourers and other villagers had taken her son Tota Ram to the Government Hospital, Haridwar. He was admitted there in the hospital. He was put under treatment and consequently, later on, the complainant is said to have registered the FIR on 01.07.2001 at about 08:40 a.m. as against the convict revisionist. After the registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted and on culmination of the investigation, the Investigation Officer has submitted a charge sheet, being Charge Sheet No.34 of 2001 dated

01.07.2001. In the charge sheet, thus submitted by the Investigating Officer, in relation to the Case Crime No.34 of 2001, he has examined as many as 9 witnesses, in support of his report for the offence who had also appeared in the witness box and recorded their respective statements, in relation to the commission of the offence under Section 324 IPC and the assault, which has been caused upon Tota Ram, the son of the complainant. On submission of the aforesaid charge sheet before the Magistrate concerned, the cognizance was taken by the trial court vide its order dated 10.06.2002, and as a consequence thereto, the Criminal Case No.09 of 2003, was registered by the court of Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, as against the revisionist accused.

#5. During the course of trial, the prosecution in support of their ‐ 4 ‐ contention has adduced evidence in relation to the commission of offence by way of placing on record, the copy of FIR Exh.6, the G.D., the medical report of Tota Ram Exhs.2, 3; 4, the site plan Exh.8 and the charge sheet Exh.5 submitted against the revisionist. All the witnesses, who were adduced with regards to the incident before the Investigating Officer had also appeared in the witness box and they have recorded their statement as referred in the trial court’s judgment to substantiate the case of the prosecution and the occurrence by the incident, which has been complained of by the complainant with regard to the assault on Tota Ram. For example PW1 Preetam Singh, PW2 Jasveer Singh; PW3 Tota Ram (the victim), PW4 Smt. Geeta Devi (complainant Mother), PW4 and PW5 Dr. R.K. Pandey and Dr. O.P. Agarwal (who medically examined the victim Tota Ram); PW7 Baljeet Singh (the Investigating Officer), after examination, the evidence of prosecution was closed.

#6. While on the other hand in the defence, the statement was recorded was that of the revisionist under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but the sole testimony, which he has recorded as that of DWI Malkiyat Singh, it would be apparent on its scrutiny, he has simply denied the commission of any such offence and occurrence of any such incident, which has been complained of by the complainant in FIR registered by her on 01.07.2001 before the Police concerned.

#7. Even learned trial court of Judicial Magistrate had after considering the evidence on record and on appreciating the statement recorded by DW1 Malkiyat Singh wherein he has submitted that no such ‐ 5 ‐ incident as complained of has ever chanced and he has further stated that the sole controversy arose because he has heard that Tota Ram intended to escape away with the sister of the revisionist but he also states that he not seen any such incident occur, it is stated by him that it was on account of which there was certain disputes, which arose between the parties resulting into in assault on Tota Ram which had caused injuries on his person. But he further states that he does know how injury was caused. Learned trial court on considering, the prosecution witnesses particularly the relevance would be to the statement of PW1 the eye witness of the assault and that of PW6 Dr. O.P. Agarwal, who has conducted the medical examination on the person of Tota Ram on 30.06.2001 and he has recorded that as many as 9 injuries were found on the person of the victim and those injuries have been dealt with by the Judicial Magistrate in the impugned judgment dated

20.09.2005. In the following manner:-

#2. 3.

#4. Open cut injury 3.8 x 9 cm, bone deep, on left side of the head above 9 cm above ears. Open cut injury of 2 x 5 cm, skull deep, 13 cm above left ear. Bluish abrasion 4 cm x 3 cm. Behind head 3 cm towards right side swelling, near optical region. Besides this there were other injuries which was caused on the complainant’s son Tota Ram totaling to above 5 other injuries.

#8. The learned trial court while appreciating the evidence and the oral testimony of the witnesses of the rival parties has recorded a finding that in view of the medical report, the injuries which were inflicted on the victim Tota Ram and one of the most serious injuries, which was found on person as per the medical report was the injury, which was caused on head by assaulting him with a spade. The doctors have appeared in the witness box and had supported their medical report and consequently, looking to the seriousness of the injuries the learned trial court has ‐ 6 ‐ convicted the revisionist to undergo a sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment for the aforesaid offence under Section 324 IPC. The trial court on considering the oral and documentary evidence concluded that the fact of assaulting and resultant injuries caused on the person of the victim Tota Ram was proved beyond doubt, regarding their gravity the court considered the doctors statement and their medical report i.e. Exhibit 2,3,4, which has shown the seriousness of injury and part of the body on which it was caused, i.e. head, optical region were held to be vital part of the body and were caused by dangerous weapon, which could have been serious to life of the victim. The medical report was proved by the doctors. Thus, the court held that on comparative scrutiny of oral testimony of witnesses, the incident, the injury and involvement of sister Nikki in the incident was proved beyond doubt. Thus trial court held that the incident and injuries were proved beyond doubt. This had convicted the revisionist for the offence under Section 324 IPC.

#9. Challenging the said judgment, the criminal appeal was preferred by the revisionist, and the appellate court too while adjudicating the Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2005, Govind Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, has considered the rival contentions and particularly the statement of DW1, wherein he has stated that on 30.06.2001 he had not gone towards the house of the complainant Geeta Devi on the said date, and had not seen any such incident. Hence, the appellate court held that his denial that no such incident had occurred is of no relevance, when he admits that on the said date he has not gone towards Geeta’s house. Hence, much relevance could be placed on his statement as not being the reliable evidence. Even if the ‐ 7 ‐ statement of the victim under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is considered, he had recorded that there did prevail a dispute regarding land between the convict and the complainant, so it could be said that there was a reason for the incident, due to existing and continuous enmity. Appellate court re affirmed the finding of cause of assault. Thus, the condition satisfied the element of section 324 IPC i.e. sudden assault by dangerous weapon or other means, considering the nature of injuries they were fatal to life, could have resulted to death, looking to the circumstances the incident falls to be under the ambit of section 324 of IPC. The manner, in which the implications of the medical report and the statement of the victim and the complainant, which was recorded before the court below, has rendered the judgment on

18.02.2012 and thereby, while recording his finding in para 16 of the said judgment, he has come to the conclusion that looking to the gravity of injuries and also the statement recorded, the court has found that since there was an apparent dispute pertaining to some relationship of the sister of the assailant with the victim Tota Ram and preexisting land dispute; the entire dispute has occurred, which has resulted into the registration of the FIR. Though, ultimately, on appreciation of the evidence, the appellate court did not find that the incident as complained of has occurred on the said date but under the backdrop, under which it has occurred into the relationship of sister of the accused, the court has drawn a conclusion that it was quite a reasonable consequence which was to follow due to the sudden eruption of anger, which has resulted into assailing the victim by use of spade. Hence, on a total consideration of set of circumstances, the appellate court has reduced the sentence by directing the revisionist to undergo a rigorous imprisonment of one year six months for the aforesaid offence. While ‐ 8 ‐ reducing the sentence of conviction of trial court, the appellant had taken of considerate and sympathetic view, considering his poverty, family conditions, dependency of family members on him, the wife since only being a house mother not independently engaged, she has no independent source of earning, had reduced the sentence. But at least the finding of reduction of sentence affirms the incident, the injuries, its seriousness, the preexisting enmity etc., to the prime motive of assault. Meaning thereby as far as the incident and the injuries caused to Tota Ram is concerned that stood settled by both the courts below concurrently, but the only latitude which has been expressed by the appellate court for reducing the sentence were the circumstances under which the injuries was caused on Tota Ram. Thus, under the above reasons the matter of the reduction of sentence as made by the appellate court’s judgment dated 18.02.2012 reducing the sentence more particularly when the commissioning of offence has been held out to be established. This Court is of the view that the appellate court has rightly come to the conclusion and has rather already reduced the sentence appropriately. Considering the gravity of the offence and the circumstances under which it has chanced and caused by the revisionist, thus this Court is of the view that once the court has come to the conclusion that the actual incident did occur and the interference was shown only with relation to the circumstances, which was the cause of the feud between the parties has reduced the sentences on the ground of family conditions only. After having gone through the record as produced by the court below and also after hearing Government Advocate, this Court is of the view that the appellate court’s judgment dated 18.02.2012, reducing the sentence after upholding the occurrence of the incident, which was initially denied by the ‐ 9 ‐ revisionist, has not committed any apparent error of misappropriation or wrongful appreciation of the evidence on record and thus, looking to the gravity of the injuries caused to Tota Ram and the quantum of sentence imposed by the appellant/revisionist to commensurate the set of allegation leveled against the revisionist, consequently the revision, does not deserves merit consideration, as it lacks merit and the same is dismissed. The revisionist who has been released on bail in pursuance to the order passed by the Coordinate Bench on 24.02.2012, is directed to surrender forthwith and to serve his remaining sentence excluding the sentence which he has already undergone as against the total sentence imposed by the appellate court. The security as furnished to avail the bail, that would stand discharge. Arti (Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)

16.10.2019