Ramesh v. State of Uttaranchal (Now State of Uttarakhand)

Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate/Amicus Curiae, present for the appellants. Mr. Suhail Ahmad Siddiqui, A.G.A., with Ms. Sangeeta Miyan, Brief Holder, present for the respondent/State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C), is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.03.2001, passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 2 1997, whereby said court has convicted the accused/appellants Ramesh, Girish, Puran Lal @ Revelu, Ram Chandra and Gori under section 325 read with section 34, and under section 323 read with section 34 of I.P.C. Each one of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, and directed to pay fine of ` 500/- (under section 325/34 of I.P.C.), and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months (under section 323/34 of I.P.C.). It is further directed by the trial court that both sentences shall run concurrently. (2) Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants, and learned A.G.A., for the State, and perused the lower court record. (3) In short, prosecution story is that, on

08.01.1996, at about 10.00 pm PW2 Shoorveer Singh was coming back to his home in village Jakherh within the limits of Patwari Circle Patakhal, from village Mehar with a cash amount of ` 15,000/- from the contractor for payment to the labourers. When PW2 Shoorveer Singh was about half a kilometer away from village Nausila accused/appellants Ramesh, Girish, Puran Lal @ Revelu, Ram Chandra and Gori surrounded him and 3 assaulted him with LATHI and KUTLA ( a pointed agricultural equipment used for hoeing). On hearing noise, PW1 Maina Devi (wife of injured Shoorveer Singh) rushed to the spot, and raised alarm where after above mentioned accused ran away. Report of the incident was lodged by PW1 Maina Devi with Patti Patwari Patakhal narrating the incident and further alleging that the victim (PW2 Shoorveer Singh) was looted of the amount he was carrying. On the basis of his report (Ex-A1) Crime No. 01 of 1996, was registered by the Patwari (In certain areas of Uttarakhand hills Revenue Officials are given police powers). Initially investigation of the case was conducted by Patwari Patakhal but later the same was transferred to regular police and Sub Inspector Om pal Singh (PW4) completed the investigation, and submitted charge sheet (Ex-A7) against all the five accused for their trial in respect of offences punishable under section 147, 324 and 307 of I.P.C. (4) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, On receipt of charge sheet (Ex-A7), after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., appears to have committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned 4 Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, on 06.11.1997, after hearing the parties framed charge of offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of I.P.C., against all the five accused namely Ramesh, Girish, Puran Lal @ Revelu, Ram Chandra and Gori, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined PW1 Smt. Maina Devi (informant), PW2 Shoorveer Singh (injured eyewitness), PW3 Vinod Kumar Patwari (who initially investigated the crime), PW4 Sub Inspector Om Pal Singh (who completed the investigation) and PW5 Dr. R.C.Baloni (who medically examined the injured after the incident). The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they pleaded that evidence adduced against them was false. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. After hearing the parties the trial court found that though the prosecution could not prove charge of offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C., but the minor offence punishable under section 325 read with section 34 and one punishable under section 323 read with section 34 of I.P.C., are proved against all the five accused. Accordingly, they were convicted, and after hearing on sentence each one of them was sentenced to 5 rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and directed to pay fine of ` 500/- under section 325/34 of I.P.C., and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under section 323/34 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated

08.03.2001, passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 1997, this appeal is preferred by the convicts. (5) Before further discussion, this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the injuries found on person of PW2 Shoorveer Singh by PW5 Dr. R.C.Balooni on 10.01.1996. The injuries mentioned by said Medical Officer in injury report (Ex-A8) are being reproduced below:-

1. Pain, tenderness, swelling and restricted movements of the left wrist with suspected fracture of the wrist joint.

2. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm vertical of the lateral side of right hand, 4.5 cm above the elbow joint. Under bone (humerus) may be fractured as there is pain on movements, wound is present with reddish brown clots around it.

3. An abrasion of 3 x 2 cm on the scalp at 6 the juncture of the occiput with frontal bone 4 cm to the left from the mid line. Irregular edges with reddish brown colour of the base of the wound.

4. A lacerated injury of the front of the leg of 1 x 0.5 cm in size with dark blood clotted on the surface and oozing of blood present. Injury is present 5 cm below the front of the knee joint of right leg.

5. Another lacerated wound of 2.5 cm x 1 cm in the centre of the skin of right leg with reddish brown in colour. There is severe pain on the mobility of the right leg.

6. Complaint of pain and tenderness of the lower back without any external injury. The Medical Officer (PW5 Dr. R.C.Balooni) opined in the injury report (Ex-A8) that injury no.3 and 6 were simple in nature he advised X ray in respect of injury no.1, 2, 4 and 5. According to the witness the injuries were about two days old. He further observed in his report that lacerated wound of injuries no. 2, 4 and 5 were caused by hard blunt object. Said Medical Officer also examined another 7 person named Karan Bahadur and recorded his injuries in injury report (Ex-A9). However, Karan Bahadur was not examined on behalf of the prosecution. (6) Now, this Court has to see as to who caused the injuries on the person of Shoorveer Singh PW2 on the date of the incident. It is further required to be seen whether the accused/appellants with common intention caused hurt and grievous hurt found on person of Shoorveer Singh (PW2). PW5 Dr. R.C. Balooni has stated that after X ray the fracture was found in one third of right tibia and another fracture was found in the left wrist of the injured (Shoorveer Singh). (7) PW2 Shoorveer Singh (injured) is the best eyewitness of the incident. Narrating the prosecution story he has stated that on 08.01.1996, he was coming back to his house from village Mehar. The witness further states that at 10.00 pm accused/appellants Ramesh, Girish, Puran Lal @ Revelu, Ram Chandra and Gori surrounded him and assaulted him with stone and KUTLA (an agricultural equipment used for hoeing). He further stated that their wives were also with them. PW2 8 Shoorveer Singh further told that on hearing noise his wife also reached at the spot. The witness further told that he was having torch in his hand. PW2 Shoorveer Singh further told that his wife complained about the incident to Sub Divisional Magistrate, who asked her to get her husband medically examined. PW2 Shoorveer Singh further told that he got his injuries medically examined and remained hospitalized for about one and half month. (8) The statement of PW2 Shoorveer Singh (injured) is corroborated by PW1 Maina Devi, wife of the injured. She has stated that on hearing noise on the day of incident at about 10.00 pm she reached at the spot, and saw the accused Ramesh, Girish, Puran Lal @ Revelu, Ram Chandra and Gori assaulting her husband. She has proved report (Ex- A1) lodged by her with Patwari of the area. (9) Having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, this Court finds no illegality in the finding recorded by the trial court that accused Ramesh, Girish, Puran Lal @ Revelu, Ram Chandra and Gori with common intention caused voluntarily hurt and grievous hurt to Shoorveer Singh. 9 (10) On behalf of the appellants learned Amicus Curiae pointed out the inconsistencies in the statements of PW1 Maina Devi and PW2 Shoorveer Singh. However, the same relate to robbing of a amount possessed by Shoorveer Singh. As to the robbery there is neither charge framed against the accused, nor they were held guilty by the trial court. As such, merely on the basis of the contradictions on that point the ring of the truth regarding causing hurt and grievous hurt to the witness PW2 Shoorveer Singh can not be ignored, particularly when the same gets corroborated from the medical evidence on record. (11) For the reasons as discussed above, this Court is of the view on the point of conviction of the accused/appellants, this appeal has no force. It is requested by learned Amicus Curiae that as long period has passed since the date of incident, the sentence awarded against the accused/appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone. From the lower court record it appears that accused/appellants had been in jail for about a fort night during investigation, and another fort night after their conviction (in all about one month) in jail. 10 This Court in the facts and circumstances of the case agrees to said request of Amicus Curiae to reduce the period already undergone. (12) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed on the point of conviction recorded by the trial court under section 323/34 and under section 325/34 of I.P.C., against all the five accused/appellants. However, on the point of sentence appeal is disposed of with the direction that the sentence awarded by the trial court is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused/appellants without disturbing the sentence of fine directed to be paid by said court. Accused/appellants are on bail. They need not to surrender provided that they have deposited the fine directed to be paid by the trial court. Lower court record be sent back. Dt.20.12.2012 N.P (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)