Trilok Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

We have heard Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the m aterial available on record. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that statem ent of Anul Devi cannot be accepted since she is the interested and partisan witness. The argum ent of learned counsel for the appellant does not appeal in view of the circum stance and deposition of Anuli Devi in the present case. 5 Her deposition is quite consistent true and honest. Moreover her presence at the time of place of occurrence is natural as her house is just close to the house of accused-Trilok Singh and the deceased. There is no other house in the close vicinity of house of the accused and deceased. Thus, this Court is of the view that there is nothing on record to discard the testim ony of Anuli Devi. There is no serious infirm ity, which creates doubt in her statem ent. Thus the conviction has been based on the sole testimony of this witness. Moreover, she inform ed the facts to Mohan Singh (PW-2) and Nain Singh (PW-3) who supported has statem ent. Her version finds m ention in the inquest report also. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is considerable delay in lodging the F.I.R. He pointed out that occurrence took place on 0 4.11.1996 at 1:0 0 p.m . and Prem Singh expired on 0 5.11.1996 at 6:0 0 p.m ., whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on the next day i.e. 0 6.11.1996 at 10 :30 a.m . There is delay of alm ost two days in lodging the F.I.R. This period m ight have been used by the prosecution to concoct a false story. After having gone through the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that delay in this case has been satisfactorily explained. It is not disputed that the deceased and accused are stepbrothers and there was no enm ity between them . There was a sudden quarrel and during the course of altercation accused-Trilok Singh caused lathi blow on the head of Prem Singh (deceased). Since it was a fam ily dispute and wife of the deceased m ay not have considered it to be a serious m atter as Prem Singh (deceased) was still alive though he was unconscious. She m ay not have thought expedient to report the m atter to the police before the death of her husband. However, after the death of Prem Singh (deceased), efforts were m ade to lodge the F.I.R. with the concerned Patwari but Patwaris were 6 on strike, therefore, she asked Mohan Singh (PW-2), who reported the m atter on the next day in police station Bageshwar which is at a distance of 46 kilom eters from the place of occurrence. Even if there is any delay in lodging F.I.R., it does not adversely affect the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out m aterial contradiction in the prosecution case and m em o of possession. As per Ex. Ka-5, the lathi was allegedly taken into possession by the Investigating Officer on 0 6.11.1996, whereas as per the statement of Him alay Singh Martoliya, Investigating Officer, (PW-4), he had recorded the statement of Anuli Devi on 0 7.11.1996 and he also prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence on the pointing out of Anuli Devi and also Anuli Devi handed over one lathi which was used by the accused for assaulting her husband. It appears that the date has been wrongly m entioned due to lapse of tim e by Investigating Officer as 0 7.11.1996 in his deposition before the court. His statement was recorded in the court on 11.11.1998 whereas the m em o was prepared in the year 1996 i.e. two years prior to his deposition, therefore, he m ight have forgotten the exact date but this very fact does not in any way create any doubt in the prosecution case. The last argum ent raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that no offence under Section 30 4 part II of the I.P.C. is m ade out. It is argued that the offence would only fall within the purview of Section 326 of the Indian Pen al Code. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that adm ittedly there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause such bodily injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Accused-Trilok Singh had no enm ity with the deceased nor had any m otive to cause the fatal injury. The case would therefore, fall only for causin g grievous hurt. In support 7 of his case learned counsel for the appellant referred the judgm ent of Apex Court in the case of R a m u Vs. S t a t e o f U .P . reported in [2 0 0 4 ( 1) U C 4 8 6 ]. The facts of case cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable in present case. In the present case there is no dispute that the incident em erges out of sudden altercation between the two brothers. They had no previous enm ity nor there was any prem editation before the incident. However, it is not disputed that the injury was caused on the vital part of the body. The accused does not appear to have any intention to inflict such bodily injury which was likely to cause death. Even, Sm t. Anuli Devi have stated that the accused did not have any inten tion to cause death of Prem Singh. However, it is well proved from the m edical evidence that the injury caused by the accused was on the head of Prem Singh (deceased). There was fracture of the skull. The injury was caused by the accused without any excuse incurring the risk of causing death or such injuries as to the probability of the causing death. In view of the detailed discussion, I find no m erit in the appeal and the sam e is dism issed. Conviction and sentence awarded against the appellant is affirm ed. If the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged and he shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial court. VKG 0 2 .0 4 .2 0 10 ( N ir m a l Ya d a v, J .)