Pushkar Singh v. State of U.P. (now State of Uttarakhand)

#2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record.

#3. Prosecution story in brief is that a first information report (Ex. A2) was got lodged on

11.11.1986, by P.W. 4 Govindi Devi with Kanoongo, Thal, Tehsil Didihat, District Pithoragarh, relating to offences punishable under section 393, 394, 307 IPC, against accused/appellant Pushkar Singh alleging the he committed robbery and attempted to commit her murder. On the basis of said report crime no. 1 of 1986, was registered and investigation was taken up by P.W.5 Jagdish Prasad, Kanoongo Thal. (In Uttarakhand hills police powers are conferred of certain revenue officials vide U.P. Government Notification No. 494/VIII-418-16, dated 7th of March 1916). After interrogating the witnesses, and on completion of investigation charge sheet (Ex. A7) was filed by the Investigating Officer for trial of accused Pushkar Singh (present appellant) relating to offences punishable under section 393, 394, 307 IPC. 3

#4. The Magistrate, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court sessions for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh,

27.04.1995, after hearing the parties framed charge of offences punishable under section 393, 307 IPC, to which the accused Pushkar Singh pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W.1 Dr. H.D. Bhatt (who recorded injuries on the person of Govindi Devi), P.W. 2 Leela Bisht (an eye witness), P.W. 3 Radhika Devi (another eye witness), P.W. 4 Govindi Devi (complainant) and P.W. 5 Jagdish Prasad (Investigating Officer). The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which he alleged that the evidence adduced against him is false. He also pleaded that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court, after hearing the parties found that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offence only under section 324 IPC. Accordingly, 4 the trial court convicted the accused Pushkar Singh under section 324 IPC. After hearing on sentence, the convict was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half years. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated

01.09.2000, passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 1995, this appeal was filed by the convict before Allahabad High Court from where it is received under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (Central Act 29 of 2000), for its disposal.

#5. Before further discussion this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the injuries found on person of P.W. 4 Govindi Devi as recorded by P.W. 1 Dr. H.D. Bhatt on 08.11.1986, in the injury report (Ex.A1). The injuries are being reproduced below:- (i) Incised wound of size 1.5 X .5cm penitrating in nature (whole arm) direction anterior to posterior. Horizontally placed on front of lower part of left arm margins sharp and clean and inverted. On cleaning bleeds. Colour glutiness red. 5 (ii) Incised wound of size .5X .4 cmX penitrating in nature (whole arm) placed on back of lower part of left arm. 1cm below level of injury no. 1. Margins everted and clear cut. Surrounding skin in an area of 4cm. Swollen and redish blue in colour. The medical officer has opined in the medical report (Ex. A1) that both injuries were simple in nature caused by sharp pointed edged hard object. The above medical evidence establishes that Govindi Devi suffered injuries on the day of incident. Now, this Court has to see whether the injuries were caused by accused/appellant Pushkar Singh or not.

#6. P.W. 2 Leela Bisht, who is a student and resident of village Purana Thal has stated that on

07.11.1986, at about 7:00 p.m., her aunt Govindi Devi (P.W.4) was pounding/threshing the rice when accused Pushkar Singh came there, and assaulted her with a knife. It is further stated by her on hearing noise Radhika Devi (P.W.3) also came there. 6

#7. P.W. 3 Radhika Devi has also stated same story as narrated by P.W. 2 Leela Bisht.

#8. P.W.4 Govindi Devi is the injured witness and her testimony cannot be discarded lightly. She has also stated that accused Pushkar Singh assaulted her with a knife.

#9. In view of the above statements of three eye witnesses including the injured one, read with medical evidence, it is established on record beyond reasonable doubt that accused Pushkar Singh voluntarily caused hurt to Govindi Devi with a sharp edged weapon, and said act constitutes offence punishable under section 324 IPC. This Court has already discussed above that the nature of the injuries were simple as such this Court does not find any illegality in the order of the trial court convicting the accused Pushkar Singh under section 324 IPC.

#10. On the point of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant stated that appellant had been in jail for more than one and half months. The 7 incident relates to way back in the year 1986. More than twenty years have passed. In the circumstances, as prayed by learned counsel for the appellant, the sentence awarded to convict (appellant) can be reduced to the period already undergone.

#11. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of affirming the conviction of the appellant Pushkar Singh under section 324 IPC, and modifying the sentence of the convict (appellant) to period already undergone by him, in jail. Parul

30.08.2012 (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)