Ummed Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (now State of Uttarakhand)

perused the lower court record.

Prosecution story in brief is that on

31.12.1994, P.W.2 Padam Singh had gone to market of Takoli. When he was coming back for his home, at about 6:00 p.m., near Padaligad rivulet, accused/appellant Ummed Singh alongwith co-accused Soban Singh met him. It is alleged that accused Ummed Singh assaulted P.W.2 Padam Singh with LATHI and stone whereafter the injured (Padam Singh) fell down and got unconscious. On the next day morning (01.01.1995) at about 6:00 a.m., he was seen lying in injured condition by P.W.4 Yashwant Lal who shouted and informed P.W.1 Pushkar Singh (son of the injured). On this, P.W.1 Padam Singh went to the spot, took his injured father Padam Singh to Base Hospital, Srinagar (District Pauri Garhwal), and got him admitted. Only thereafter 3 on 02.01.1995, first information report (Ex. A3) was given to Patwari of the area Bagarwaldhar who registered the crime no. 1 of 1995, relating to offences punishable under section 307, 325 IPC, against accused Ummed Singh, and co- accused Soban Singh and started investigation. The Investigating Officer interrogated the witnesses, inspected the spot, took the injury report from the hospital and filed charge sheet against accused/appellant Ummed Singh and co- accused Soban Singh (since acquitted) for their trial in respect of the offences punishable under section 307/325 IPC.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., appears to have committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, on 29.09.1997, after hearing the parties framed charge of offence punishable under section 307 read with 34 IPC, against the accused Ummed Singh and Soban Singh. Both of them pleaded 4 not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W.1 Pushkar Singh (informant), P.W.2 Padam Singh (injured), P.W.3 Dhyan Singh, P.W.4 Yashwant Lal, P.W.5 Dr. Amar Singh Rai and P.W.6 Satya Singh Bist (Patwari/Investigating Officer).

Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which they alleged that the evidence adduced against them was false. In defence D.W.1 Veer Singh was got examined. After hearing the parties, the trial court found that no offence is made out as against accused Soban Singh but as against accused Ummed Singh offence punishable under section 323 IPC, is fully established. Accordingly, Ummed Singh was convicted, and after hearing on sentence, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, and directed to pay fine of ` 500/- under section 323 IPC. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 08.03.2000, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, this appeal was filed by the convict before Allahabad 5 High Court from where it is received by transfer under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (Central Act 29 of 2000) for its disposal.

Before further discussion this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the injuries found on the person of Padam Singh (P.W.2) recorded by P.W.5 Dr. Amar Singh Rai, Emergency Medical Officer of Government Base Hospital, Srinagar. The said injuries are being reproduced below:- (i) A contusion with swelling on left eye ball. (ii) A lacerated wound size upto 1cm X

0.25cm on the left forehead, 2cm just above the left upper eye brow. (iii) Multiple lacerated wound three in number size 1.5cm X 0.5cm, 2.5cm X

0.25cm and 3cm X 0.5cm respectively (left to right side) on the frontal bone. (iv) Multiple lacerated wound three in number size (from left to right) 3.5cm X

0.5cm, 2cm X 0.5cm and 1.5cm X 0.5cm respectively, on the occipital bone of the skull 6 (head). (v) A lacerated wound size 1cm X

0.25cm on the left ear. (vi) Multiple contusion marks on the back of the body. Painful swelling on right forearm. (vii) Complaint of pain with swelling on right forearm and right palm. In the opinion of P.W.5 Dr. Amar Singh Rai all the above injuries were one day old which were caused by hard and blunt object. He advised x-ray in respect of injury no. 1,2,3,4 and

However, there is no report on the record suggesting grevious injury. From the medical evidence on record it is established that P.W.2 Padam Singh suffered injury in the intervening night of 31.12.1994 and 01.01.1995. This Court has to examine the oral testimony of the eye witnesses to come to the conclusion if it was accused Ummed Singh has caused the injuries or not.

7. P.W.2 Padam Singh is the star eye 7 witness who have suffered injuries. Supporting prosecution story, he has stated on oath before the trial court that on 31.12.1994, he had gone to local market Takoli. The witness further states that he was returning home at about 6:00 p.m., and when he reached near Padalgad rivulet he met accused/appellant Ummed Singh and co- accused Soban Singh. The witness has further narrated that accused Ummed Singh armed with LATHI assaulted him. The witness has further told that the accused Ummed Singh also used stone in giving blows on the person of the witness. P.W.2 Padam Singh further told that after getting injured he fell unconscious. It is also stated by him that accused dragged him and left him near a bush. He further told that on next day morning he got some consciousness and crawled upto Indra Colony. According to this witness Yashwant Lal (P.W.4) heard his voice whereafter his son was informed.

The statement of the above injured witness P.W.2 Padam Singh is fully corroborated from the medical evidence already discussed 8 above. The testimony of the injured is further corroborated from the statement of P.W.4 Yashwant Lal and P.W.1 Pushkar Singh who took the injured to hospital and lodged first information report. The prosecution story further gets corroboration from the statement of P.W.3 Dhyan Singh who also told that he saw Padam Singh lying in injured condition, and on enquiry disclosed that Ummed Singh had assaulted him.

Having reappreciated the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that the trial court has rightly convicted accused under section 323 IPC, as there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the injured witness which is fully corroborated from the medical evidence and oral evidence adduced by other witnesses of fact.

Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that accused Ummed Singh had remained in jail for more than fifteen days during investigation/ trial, and considering the nature of the offence (323 IPC) the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. 9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court thinks it just and proper that in a case of offence punishable under section 323 IPC, where the accused had remained in jail for more than fifteen days during investigation/ trial, no useful purpose will be served by sending him to jail again after a period of seventeen years as such, for the interest of justice the period of sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone.