Ganpati Ram vs State of Uttarakhand

U.C. Dhyani, J.—An FIR was lodged at the instance of PW 4 Bachan Singh (informant) on 09.04.1995 to Patti Patwari, Lalathpato, Sub District Kirtinagar, District Tehri Garhwal against accused-appellant Ganpati Ram in respect of offences punishable under Sections 307, 353, 323, 392, 504, 506 of IPC. The informant was posted and working as Patwari on the date of incident. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant for the selfsame offences. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it''s case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 353 and 393 of IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW 1 Budhi Singh, PW 2 Kushal Singh, PW 3 Suresh Chand Tewari (Patwari), PW 4 Bachan Singh (informant), PW 5 Sunder Lal, PW 6 Guru Prasad and PW 7 Mahidhar Prasad were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was adduced in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, found accused Ganpati Ram guilty of offences punishable under Sections 353 and 323 of IPC. The convict was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in respect of offence punishable u/s 353 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months u/s 323 of IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused was, however, exonerated of the charges levelled against him in respect of other offences. Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 6th April 2002, present criminal appeal was preferred by the convict.

Prosecution story was that, on 09.04.1995, at about 09:00 A.M., when the informant Bachan Singh, Patwari, was going to execute warrant of arrest in village Unana, accused Ganpati Ram met him on the way. Accused Ganpati Ram made a query to the informant regarding the purpose of his visit to village Unana. The informant disclosed the purpose of his visit to the accused. On this, accused abused the informant, pushed him on the ground and tried to strangulate him. Accused also snatched Rs. 150/- from the pocket of the informant. Accused tore away the papers in the presence of Sunder Lal, Budhi Singh and Khushal Singh. Budhi Singh and Khushal Singh were the teachers, teaching in the local school. These witnesses saved the informant, otherwise the accused would have strangulated the informant. The witnesses collected torn papers from the road. Accused threatened the informant with dire consequences and fled away from the place of occurrence. The Ratwari of adjoining area also reached there. Informant disclosed the incident to him and lodged the FIR on the selfsame day, at 09:30 A.M. Revenue Police, after investigating the case, submitted the charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 307, 392, 353, 332, 504, 506 of IPC. The injured-informant was medically examined at Primary Health Center, Kirtinagar. The statement of PW 1 Budhi Singh was recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. There was no delay in lodging the FIR. The medical examination of the injured was also conducted in time.

PW 1 Budhi Singh (teacher), who was teaching in a local school, said in his examination-in-chief, that on 09.04.1995, at about 10:00 A.M., he was near the DGBR camp alongwith Khushal Singh, Sunder Lal and Patwari Bachan Singh. PW 4 Bachan Singh informed PW 1 that he has to go to execute a warrant of arrest of son of Mor Singh. PW 4 also informed that he was going to village Unana. PW 4 went to his house to bring the warrant of arrest. PW 1 waited for PW 4 in the meanwhile. When they proceeded for village Unana, accused came. A conversation took place between PW 4 and the accused. PW 1 heard the cries and went to the place, wherein he found that both PW 4 and the accused were lying on the ground. The accused laid PW 4 (Patwari) and sat over him. A scuffle took place between them. Both were drunk. (PW 4 was not drunk as per his medical report). Thereafter, PW 1 was declared hostile and was cross-examined by learned D.G.C. (Crl.). In this way, PW 1 supported a part of the prosecution story.

PW 2 Khushal Singh supported the prosecution story to some extent and said that he was near DGBR camp on 09.04.1995, at about 10:00 A.M. A scuffle took place between PW 4 and the accused. Other people also assembled there. PW 2, at this stage, was declared hostile and was cross-examined by learned D.G.C. (Crl). The evidence tendered by PW 1 and PW 2 was on the similar footing.

PW 3 Suresh Chand Tewari (Patwari), who was a colleague of PW 4, supported the prosecution story and said that on 09.04.1995, around 9:00-10:00 A.M., accused abused PW 4 and threatened to kill him. Accused tore away the warrant, which was in possession of PW 4. Accused also robbed Rs. 150/- from the pocket of PW 4. The torn warrant papers were sealed and a memo (Ext. Ka-1) whereof was prepared. PW 4 was not drunk, as immediately after the incident, he was medically examined, whereupon, it was found that he received some abrasions on his neck. PW 3 was the Patwari of the adjoining area. There was nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW 3.

PW 4 Bachan Singh was the informant, who was beaten, threatened and robbed of by the accused, when he was going to execute a warrant of arrest in village Unana. PW 4 was pushed on the ground by the accused, who tore away the papers, which were in possession of PW 4. PW 4 also said that Sunder Lal, Budhi Singh and Khushal Singh also arrived at the place of occurrence, who saved him, otherwise the accused would have strangulated him. PW 4 also proved FIR (Ext. Ka-2) as well as copy of the G.D. (Ext. Ka-3).

PW 5 Sunder Lal did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. PW 6 Guru Prasad was Reader in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kirtinagar, in the year 1995. The statement of PW 1 Budhi Singh was recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. PW 6 proved such statement (Ext. Ka-4), which was recorded by Alok Shekhar Tiwari, the then S.D.M. PW 7 Kanungo Mahidhar Prasad was the Investigating Officer of the case, who took the statements of the witnesses, affected the arrest of the accused, prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-5), got the statement of PW 1 Budhi Singh recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C., took PW 4 to the Medical Officer for his examination and finally, on being satisfied that the accused committed the offences, submitted charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-6) against him. PW 7 also proved the injury report (Ext. Ka-7) of the injured PW 4.

There is no doubt about the incident, as also the place of incident. The incident took place on 09.04.1995, at around 9:00-10:00 A.M. The place of occurrence was near DGBR camp. The FIR was registered at an earliest opportunity and hence, there was no scope of embellishment in the same. Although PW 1, PW 2 and PW 5 were declared hostile after travelling some length, but even then PW 1 and PW 2 supported the prosecution story substantially. PW 3 corroborated the entire prosecution story. He was cross-examined at length. Nothing came in his cross-examination to suggest that he was telling a lie or that the prosecution story was doubtful. So was PW 4, who was also an injured. Prosecution story could be proved on the strength of the oral testimony of PW 3 and PW 4 alone, as both of them withstood the rancour and ignominy of cross-examination. The oral testimony of PW 4 was corroborated by Ext. Ka-7, which indicated that PW 4 sustained contusion on the left side of the neck; contusion on the right side of the neck; traumatic swelling on the middle of the back between two scapulae; abrasion on the left lower back and complaint of pain in the chest, abdomen, lower limbs and upper limbs. All injuries were simple in nature caused by some hard and blunt object, duration of which was fresh. The Medical Officer examined PW 4 on 09.04.1995 at 11:45 A.M. The incident took place when PW 4 was going to village Unana to execute a warrant. When PW 4 disclosed the purpose of his visit to the accused, accused became infuriated. The accused pushed PW 4 on the ground, sat over him, threatened him and tore away the warrant of arrest, a recovery memo (Ext. Ka-1) whereof was prepared. Learned trial court has discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses at length. After considering the evidence on record, learned court below gave a reasoned judgment. Learned Sessions Judge found that no case u/s 307 of IPC was made out against the accused. Learned Sessions Judge also did not find a case u/s 392 of IPC against the accused. No cross appeal was filed by the State against such acquittal. The prosecution story was proved against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt in respect of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 353 of IPC and he was rightly held guilty of the offences complained of against him to this extent.

Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant submitted that the term of imprisonment of the accused-appellant u/s 353 of IPC should be reduced. Learned Amicus Curiae also submitted that the accused-appellant was not a previous convict and an offender u/s 353 of IPC could be dealt with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. Considering the facts and attenuating circumstances of the case, while the conviction of the accused-appellant under Sections 323 and 353 of IPC is affirmed, but the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant u/s 353 of IPC is reduced to six months. It is therefore, directed that the accused-appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months u/s 353 of IPC, instead of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The sentence awarded against the accused-appellant by the trial court u/s 323 of IPC i.e. rigorous imprisonment for six months shall remain intact. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

The criminal appeal is thus finally disposed of with the modification in the sentence u/s 353 of IPC only, as above.

Accused-appellant is on bail. His bail is cancelled. Accused-appellant shall surrender before the court below forthwith to serve out the sentence as modified by this Court. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the lower court records be sent to the court below for ensuring compliance as above.