Kalam Singh v. State of Uttaranchal (Now State of Uttarakhand)

for the State, and perused the lower court record. (3) Prosecution story, in brief, is that accused Trilok Singh was driver of Taxi owned by co- accused Kalam Singh. Father of the complainant Digamber Singh also used to run a Taxi. On

27.03.1996, at about 4.30 p.m., complainant's father PW8 Kalyan Singh was getting ready to take his taxi from Jamnikhal in District Tehri Garhwal. At that point of time a quarrel was picked up by two accused Kalam Singh and Trilok Singh with complainant's father Kalyan Singh, who was beaten mercilessly by the two accused. A report of the incident was lodged by PW1 Digamber Singh (son of the injured Kalyan Singh) with Naib Tehsildar Dev Prayag on

01.04.1996, against the two accused Kalam Singh and Trilok Singh relating to offence punishable 3 under section 307 of I.P.C. (In Uttarakhand Hills certain Revenue Officials are given police powers since British time). The Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet (Ex-A6) against the two accused/appellants Kalam Singh Son of Shiv Singh and Trilok Singh Son of Kalam Singh, for their trial in respect of offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. (4) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, on receipt of charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. The trial court after hearing the parties framed charge of offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of I.P.C on 29.04.1997, against the two accused/appellants namely Kalam Singh and Trilok Singh, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined PW1 Digamber Singh (complainant), PW2 Raghuvir Singh, PW3 Shiv Prasad, PW4 Deewan Singh, PW5 Dr. K.K.Tamta, PW6 Sub Inspector Purushottam Bahuguna, PW7 Dr. S.K.Nautiyal and PW8 Kalyan Singh Negi. 4 (5) The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they pleaded the evidence adduced against them is false. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. After hearing the parties, the trial court found that though charge of offence punishable under section 307/34 of I.P.C., is not made out against any of the accused, but it is proved that both of the accused with common intention voluntarily caused hurt to PW8 Kalyan Singh son of Fate Singh, and accordingly convicted them under section 323/34 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated

20.12.2000, passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 05 of 1997, this appeal is filed by the convicts. (6) Before further discussion this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the injuries suffered by PW8 Kalyan Singh which were recorded by PW7 Dr. S.K.Nautiyal, who recorded the same in the injury report Ex-A7. The injuries which were found by PW7 Dr. S.K.Nautiyal on the person of Kalyan Singh Negi son of Fate Singh, are reproduced below:- 5

#1. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on right side lower lip inner aspect.

#2. Bleeding present from right ear.

#3. Contusion red in colour, 5 cm x 4 cm on right side temporal region, 7 cm away from lateral end of right eye. PW7 Dr. S.K. Nautiyal has observed in the injury report that the injuries were suffered by the injured due to fall from a staircase. In the cross examination this witness has stated that about the fact that the injuries were suffered by the injured by falling from a staircase must have been disclosed to him either by the injured or his son who brought him for the examination. (7) PW1 Digamber Singh is not the eyewitness of the incident, and he has simply proved First Information Report (Ex-A1). PW2 Raghuvir Singh is also not an eyewitness. (8) The only eyewitnesses who have supported the prosecution case are PW3 Shiv Prasad and 6 PW8 Kalyan Singh (injured). In reply to the statements of these two witnesses, the accused Kalam Singh in his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C, stated that PW8 Kalyan Singh has suffered injury while stepping down from a staircase as he fell on the rear portion on his vehicle. (9) In view of the observation made by the Medical Officer soon after the incident on

27.03.1996, it cannot be ruled out that PW8 Kalyan Singh suffered injuries by falling from a staircase. The First Information Report is not a prompt one. It is lodged after three days of the incident. In the above circumstances, false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out. (10) Therefore, on re-appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds that it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused/appellants Kalam Singh and Trilok Singh voluntarily caused hurt to the injured (PW8 Kalyan Singh). Therefore, both the accused/appellants are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. (11) For the reasons as discussed above, this 7 appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 20.12.2000, passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 05 of 1997, convicting the accused/appellants Kalam Singh and Trilok Singh under section 323/34 of I.P.C., is hereby set aside. They stand acquitted from the charge. They are on bail. They need not to surrender. Lower court record be sent back. Dt.19.11.2012 N.P (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)