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

perused the lower court record. (3) Prosecution story, in brief, is that PW1 Sonu Sahu aged sixteen years was student of Mahaveer Jain Kanya College, Dehradun. Her mother used to work in a factory manufacturing bulb. Accused Dalbeer Singh also used to work there. He (Dalbeer Singh) was a married man. PW1 Sonu Sahu also used to go to her mother's work place where accused, and the girl (Sonu Sahu) developed acquaintance. Prosecution case is that the accused proposed to get married Sonu Sahu (PW1), but she refused the offer on the ground that he is a married man. On this, accused Dalbeer Singh got annoyed, and on 21.11.1996 at 3.00 pm., when the girl was 3 returning home from Mahavir Jain Kanya College, and reached near Anand Chowk Temple, accused Dalbeer Singh alongwith his friend stopped her. The friend of the accused caught hold hands of the girl and accused Dalbeer Singh administered a bottle of poison through her mouth forcibly, and thereafter both the accused/appellant and his friend ran away. The girl (Sonu Sahu) somehow walked up to her house, and told the story to her mother. PW2 Shiv Devi (mother of the girl) took her daughter immediately to Doon Hospital where PW5 Dr. G.B.Singh treated her by making her to cough the poison, and vomit the same. PW5 Dr. G.B.Singh admitted the patient (PW1 Sonu Sahu) in the hospital and prepared report (Ex-A8). On the next day (22.11.1996) at 2.00 pm, PW2 Shiv Devi gave First Information Report (Ex-A1) at Police Station Kotwali Dehradun. On the basis of said report Crime No. 917 of 1996 was registered relating to offences punishable under section 328 and 506 of I.P.C., against accused/appellant Dalbeer Singh, and his unknown associate. The crime was investigated by PW4 Sub Inspector Fakir Lal Verma. He interrogated the witnesses, and inspected the spot. Meanwhile the vomited contents of PW1 Sonu 4 Sahu were also got sent for chemical analysis. After completion of investigation charge sheet (Ex-A5) was filed by the Investigating Officer against accused Dalbeer Singh, for his trial in respect of offences punishable under section 328 and 506 of I.P.C. Report was received from the Forensic Laboratory reporting that the contents sent for examination contained aluminium phosphide poison. (4) On receipt of charge sheet (Ex-A5) Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, 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. Learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, on 03.06.1997, after hearing the parties framed charge of offences punishable under section 328 and 506 of I.P.C., to which the accused Dalbeer Singh pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined PW1 Sonu Sahu, PW2 Shiv Devi (informant), PW3 Bhagwan Das (father of the girl Sonu), PW4 Sub Inspector Fakir Lal Verma (Investigating Officer) and PW5 Dr. G.B.Singh (who medically examined the girl Sonu Sahu). The oral and documentary evidence was put 5 to the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which he admited that PW1 Sonu Sahu was student of Mahavir Jain Kanya College. He further admitted that he was married man. He also admitted that Shiv Devi (PW2 mother of the girl) and he (Dalbeer Singh) used to work in the same factory manufacturing bulb. But as to the rest of evidence he pleaded that the same was false. In defence accused got himself examined as DW1 after seeking permission under section 315 of Cr.P.C. After hearing the parties the trial court found that accused Dalbeer Singh guilty of charge of offences punishable under section 328 and 506 of I.P.C. Thereafter, the accused Dalbeer Singh was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three and half years and directed to pay fine of ` 2500/- under section 328 of I.P.C., and he was further sentenced to pay fine of ` 2500/- under section 506 (2) of I.P.C. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 20.03.2001, passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 1997, this appeal is preferred by the convicts. (5) Before further discussion, this Court thinks it 6 just and proper to mention about the observations made by PW5 Dr. G.B.Singh of Doon Hospital Dehradun, immediately after the girl (Km Sonu Sahu) reached hospital at 3.50 pm., on 21.11.1996. The observations made in the report (Ex-A8) are being reproduced below:- Patient states that some people forcibly gave her some poisonous material half an hour before. Patient fully conscious. Pupils slightly dilated. Gastric wash done and preserved for chemical analysis. Patient kept under observation and admitted, and police informed . PW5 Dr. G.B.Singh has stated that he was on emergency duty in the Doon Hospital on 21.11.1996 when at 3.50 pm., Km Sonu Sahu (PW1) aged sixteen years was brought by her mother. The Medical officer stated that he was told that poisonous substance was forcibly administered to patient by someone. He further told that he got the stomach wash done and preserved the contents vomited by the patient. He proved his report (Ex- A8) dated 21.11.1996, and discharge slip (Ex-A9) issued on 23.11.1996. 7 (6) As to the who administered poisonous, PW1 Sonu Sahu is the best witness of the case. She has stated that she knew the accused Dalbeer Singh Negi. She further told that on 21.11.1996, she was coming back from Mahaveer Jain Kanya College when at 3.00 pm., she was stopped by accused Dalbeer Singh and his associate near Anand Chowk Temple. PW1 Sonu Sahu further told that associate of the accused caught her hands and accused Dalbeer Singh administered some liquid contained in a bottle through her mouth. She further told that the accused Dalbeer Singh threatened her of dire consequences. She further told that both the accused Dalbeer Singh and his associate ran away in a scooter. PW1 Sonu Sahu further told that somehow she reached her house and told the story to her mother. She further told that her mother took her to hospital for medical treatment. The witness further narrated that on the next day on her dictation her brother in law Jitendra Chaudhary lodged First Information Report (Ex-A1). She proved the report. She further told that at the time she was admitted in the hospital she was made to vomit. PW1 Sonu Sahu stated that about one week before the incident 8 accused Dalbeer Singh proposed her to marry, but since he was a married man, having children, she declined the offer. The witness further told that thereafter the accused Dalbeer Singh sent letters threatening her. PW1 Sonu Sahu has also told that the threatening letter received was given to the police, and police after giving caution to the accused let him go. Thereafter the incident of administering poison taking place. The statement of this witness is natural and trustworthy. She has been subjected to lengthy cross examination but noting has come which creates reasonable doubt in her testimony. (7) Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the girl has admitted that the place of incident where the poison is said to have been administered was a public place, and it is contended that it is hard to believe that an accused would choose a public place to administer the poison. However, on going through the entire statement of the girl, this Court is of the view that though normally an accused would avoid to choose public place for commission of crime, but if someone who is annoyed due to the failure of love affair, after losing the wisdom may act as suggested by prosecution and there is nothing 9 abnormal about it. (8) PW2 Shiv Devi (mother of the girl) has fully corroborated the statement of her daughter relating to the fact that at around 3.30 pm., her daughter came back from the school and told about the incident where after she (PW2) took her daughter to Doon Hospital. This witness (PW2) further told that Dalbeer Singh had told her that he wanted to marry Sonu Sahu, but she too refused to oblige him due to which the accused acted in the manner as stated by her daughter. (9) PW3 Bhagwan Das is father of the girl, has stated that on 21.11.1996 when he returned at 5.00 pm., from his work purani sabji mandi, Niranjanpur, he did not see the wife and her daughter, and he went to hospital where her daughter was admitted and his wife was sitting by her side. This witness has also corroborated the fact that accused Dalbeer Singh wanted to marry his daughter Sonu, but the offer was declined. (10) The statements of the above three witnesses read medical report (Ex-A8) and discharge slip (Ex- 10 A9) further read that the letters (Ex-A1) (EX-A2) sent by accused Dalbeer Singh fully prove on the record that accused administered stupefying drug to Sonu ( PW1) with intent to cause hurt and thereby committed offence punishable under section 328 of I.P.C. It is also established on the record that accused threatened Sonu (PW1) to kill her. After re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, this Court finds itself in agreement with the trial court. (11) Ms. Suman Sharma, Learned Amicus Curiae argued that the manner in which offence is said to have been committed at a public place, cannot be said to be the natural conduct of accused. It is further argued that accused Dalbeer Singh has been falsely implicated as the girl who herself wanted to marry accused Dalbeer Singh failed in her attempt as the accused was a married man. However, considering the fact that the medical report (Ex-A8) which is prepared within one hour of the incident clearly shows that the girl and her mother told in the hospital that the girl was administered poison forcibly, there remains little room to doubt the prosecution case that accused committed the crime in the manner suggested by it. Had the girl herself 11 consumed poison, she would have neither told about the incident to her mother, nor had immediately rushed to the hospital. (12) For the reasons as discussed above, this Court finds no force in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court under sections 328 and 506 of I.P.C., against the accused/appellant Dalbeer Singh is hereby affirmed. He is on bail. His bail is cancelled. He shall surrender before the court concerned to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. Lower court record be sent back. Dt.06.12.2012 N.P (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)