The State of U.P v. Badamu

information report (Ext. Ka 3) recorded with patwari (In Uttaranchal patwaris police powers, including investigate crimes). The Patwari along with Ram Singh went site and prithvi Singh to Dr. D.P. Bahuguna (P.W.1), who referred to Civil Hospital Tehri. In the Civil Hospital, doctors declared Prithvi Singh dead. 4) The Postmortem examination conducted by Dr. M.S. Panwar, who recorded following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased: i) Lacerated wound 6 cm X 3 cm, bone deep on the right temporal region 6 Cm above the upper end of right ear. On opening the wound temporal bone found fractured in 4 cm X 4 cm area. Bone piece is depressed the brain mater. On lifting the bone piece, the membrane of brain found congested with multiple haemorhajic patches. The brain basin also depressed. Under the depressed bone with haemorhajic patches. ii) Abrasion 3 cm X 2 cm above the tip of nose, clotted blood present on the abraised part.. iii) Lacerated wound 2 cm X 1 cm X ½ cm inner side of right upper lip of mouth.

Clotted blood present over the teeth. iv) Multiple abrasion size 4 cm X 3 cm on the left elbow. v) Abrasion 6 cm X 3 cm linear in direction on the inner side of left forearm. 4 vi) Abrasion 6 cm X 3 cm on prominence. vii) Abrasion 2 cm X 1 cm on the back of right upper arm. 2 cm below the right shoulder joint. viii) Abrasion 1 cm X 1 cm above the L-4 vertebrae. In the Post Mortem Report death was recorded by Dr. Panwar to have been caused due fracture of skull bone causing brain damage. 5) Bhairav Dutt (P.W.9), Patwari investigated recorded statement of Dr. D.P. Bahuguna (P.W. 1); Shanti Devi (P.W.2), wife deceased; Sabbal Singh (P.W. 3), a pony keeper; Ghanshyam Dutt (P.W. 4), who saw Badamu suspicious condition incident; Niranjan Pal (P.W. 5), Junior Engineer; Ram Singh (P.W. 6), Beldar; Dr. M.S. Panwar (P.W. 7); Prem Das (P.W. 8), an eye witness and one Kamal Singh (who was later on examined court witness) submitted charge against accused Badamu and Sundru.

The learned judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tehri, giving necessary copies accused person, committed court of Sessions on 08.01.1981, trial of the accused on charges offence punishable Section I.P.C. After hearing the parties, only charge under Section 302 was framed against both accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6) Learned Sessions Judge recorded statements aforesaid witnesses including court witness, Kamal Singh (C.W. 1) and Bhairav Dutt, Investigating Officer (P.W. 9). The trial court put the entire evidence, 5 oral as well as documentary, the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and giving opportunity adduce evidence defence, hearing parties, delivered impugned judgment, whereby accused guilty. Aggrieved by said judgment and order, this appeal has been preferred by the State. 7) The appeal was originally filed before the Allahabad High Court where leave was granted and the appeal was admitted.

This Court received appeal by transfer under Section 35 of the U.P. Re-organization Act, 2000. 8) We heard learned counsel the parties and perused the entire evidence on record. 9) In information report (Ext. Ka 3), accused are not named as it was not lodged by any eyewitness. Dr D.P. Bahuguna (P.W. 1), who examined injuries on person of the deceased before his death proved injury report (Ext. Ka. 1). Dr. M.S. Panwar (P.W.7) medical officer conducted postmortem examination deceased Prithvi Singh and has proved Ext. Ka. 2. The first witness, who accused persons, narrating circumstance Shanti Devi (P.W. 2), wife of the deceased, who stated before trial court that her husband the house along accused Badamu and Sundru, the morning, taking money purchase a bullocks. Sabbal Singh (P.W.3), a keeper, supported prosecution story to the extent that he also saw accused 6 Sundru and Badamu going with Prithvi Singh on the date of incident 2:30 P.M. 3:00 P.M. This witness further states that he them quarrelling, but he did not accused persons committing murder Prithvi Singh.

Ghanshyam Dutt (P.W.4) has stated only that he accused Badamu running suspicious circumstances. Niranjan Lal (P.W. 5), a Junior Engineer Irrigation Department stated saw Prithvi Singh in an injured condition after incident, near canal Damansarot. Ram Singh (P.W. 6) corroborates fact and he went to call the doctor and when he didn’t meet the doctor he called the Patwari. The only witness alleged to be eyewitness is Prem Das (P.W. 8), who states that he saw accused persons grappling with Prithvi Singh. He further states accused Badamu pushing Prithvi Singh a hillock towards a gorge. But this witness belongs to village Silgaon. In cross-examination, this witness failed disclose and year of incident. As the purpose for which he was passing through the place of incident he that he was going to his brother. Then, he further adds that he has no work with the brother and he was simply going to meet him.

This witness admits distance occurrence from his village about 6-7 miles. The most important factor, which raises statement made by him this witness knew the deceased and still did not go the village of the deceased nor got informed his wife. He failed to give explanation unnatural conduct part. Not this, witness is the cross-examination states that he met some 7 other people on the way but did not disclose anyone incident. In view of facts, trial court found his statement not reliable. In our opinion, reasons discussed above, committed no error of law or that of in appreciating the evidence record. We are in agreement with learned that Prem Das (P.W.8) is mere chance witness natural conduct have made statement reliable, in the circumstances of the case. 10) Motive relevant where direct account incident. But where circumstantial evidence, motive does not importance. There is no enmity alleged by the prosecution between accused the deceased.

As the motive of the crime, is suggested by prosecution, accused had intention money which the deceased has from his house, but established beyond reasonable doubt. Statement of Shanti Devi (P.W.2), who had stated had given money the deceased before he left with accused persons to purchase a pair of bullocks, failed what was the amount she gave to her husband. There is no recovery of money either of accused respondents. In the circumstances, though is proved on record Prithvi Singh Died due the head injury received by him the date of incident, is not proved beyond reasonable the death was caused by either or both of accused respondents. As statement prosecution witnesses concerned, complete the necessary chain required for providing the charge. 8 11) In the circumstances and reasons, as discussed above, see no reason interfere with impugned judgment order, whereby respondents Badamu Sundru are acquitted by trial court. Accordingly, the appeal dismissed. The respondent Badamu, who jail after execution of warrant issued by this Court, be set at liberty, if not required in any other crime. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) Dt. 1st of May, 2006. H. Negi