Jasveer Singh vs State of Uttarakhand

Alok Singh, J.—Present appeal is received from jail. Appellant, by way of present appeal, is assailing the judgment and order dated 18.12.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garwhal in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2010 whereby appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC and was sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- failing which to undergo five months additional imprisonment. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that P.W. 1 Urmila (informant) lodged an FIR with police station Chamba, Tehri Garhwal to the effect that on 11.04.2010 her brother-in- law Jasveer Singh (appellant herein) was having quarrel with her husband Yashwant Singh; all the family members tried to cool him down but remained unsuccessful; at about 09.30 p.m. appellant assaulted her husband several times with knife with an intention to kill him; having received the injuries at the hands of appellant, her husband fell down; she and her mother-in-law P.W. 2 were present on the spot; having heard the hue and cry, Rakesh Rawat, Ashtam Singh and other villagers reached to the spot; Yashwant Singh was taken to hospital in 108 Ambulance.

Having registered the FIR, P.W. 8 commenced the investigation. On completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against the appellant u/s 307 IPC. The trial was committed to the Court of Session and the Sessions Court has framed charge u/s 307 IPC against the appellant. Appellant denied the charge and claimed trial.

From the side of prosecution, informant P.W. 1 Urmila, P.W. 2 Sharda Devi, mother of appellant and injured, P.W. 3 Jaswant Singh, P.W. 4 Rakesh Rawat, P.W. 5 Ashtam Singh, P.W. 6 Mahavir Singh Negi, P.W. 7 Dr. Sanjay Kardwal, P.W. 8 Investigating Officer Pradeep Kumar Dobhal and P.W. 9 Ram Lal Ghaud were examined. The Court has also examined Dr. A.K. Srivastava, as court witness 1. Statements of accused were also recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the material available on record, the trial court has passed the judgment and order under appeal.

I have heard Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rawal, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, Brief Holder for the State and have carefully perused the record.

As per the statement of P.W. 1, wife of Yashwant Singh P.W. 3, appellant was having altercation with his elder brother Yashwant Singh right from the morning; all the family members tried to pacify him but in vain. In the evening at about 09.00 p.m., appellant having consumed liquor came to the house and started assaulting P.W. 3 with knife. P.W. 1 (wife of P.W. 3) and P.W. 2 (mother of appellant and P.W. 3) were also present on the spot. They had seen appellant assaulting P.W. 3 with knife. P.W. 2 (mother of appellant and P.W. 3) also stated that appellant having consumed the liquor came to the house at about 09.00 p.m. and started assaulting his own elder brother P.W. 3 with knife. Having received the injuries P.W. 3 fell down; having heard the hue and cry, Rakesh Rawat and uncle of appellant Ashtam Singh reached on the spot along with other villagers. They had saved P.W. 3 from the clutches of appellant and thereafter, P.W. 3 was taken to Hospital in 108 Ambulance. P.W. 3 injured in so many words has also supported the prosecution story. P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 were cross examined at great length, however, testimony of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 could not be shattered.

P.W. 7 Dr. Sanjay Kardwal in his statement stated that P.W. 3 received 7 incised wounds on different parts of his body, which could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 in their statements have stated that appellant had assaulted P.W. 3 with knife 6-7 times, therefore, their statements find corroboration with the statement of P.W. 7 Dr. Sanjay Kardwal, who noticed 7 incised wounds on the person of P.W. 3. 9. The knife, recovered on the pointing out of appellant and soil taken from the spot were sent for chemical examination and as per the chemical examination report, soil lifted from the spot and knife, so recovered, were found bloodstains, however, blood group could not be ascertained on the knife because it was found disintegrated.

P.W. 2 is the real mother of the appellant. It is not made clear as to why she would falsely implicate her younger son i.e. appellant. Appellant has also suffered abrasions on his body as stated by court witness No. 1 Dr. A.K. Srivastava who has examined the accused on 14.04.2010. It has come in the statement of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 that when appellant was assaulting P.W. 3 with knife there was scuffle between them. P.W. 5 and other villagers separated them. It seems that appellant had suffered abrasion during scuffle. Injuries on person of appellant stand duly explained.

In view of the discussion made herein above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and order under appeal.

Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rawal, learned Amicus Curiae, has vehemently argued that since there was quarrel between two brothers right from the morning, therefore, appellant might have attacked P.W. 3 due to grave and sudden provocation without there being any intention to kill P.W. 3, so the conviction should be converted to Section 335 IPC.

I have given my serious consideration to the argument, so advanced. It has come on record that although appellant had quarrel with P.W. 3 right from the morning but he had left the house in the afternoon and thereafter, came to the house at about 09.00 p.m. after consuming liquor and thereafter, gave 6-7 blows of knife on the person of P.W. 3, therefore, it does not seem to be a sudden provocation because appellant was having sufficient time for soothing between afternoon till night when he came to house after consuming liquor. Moreover, injuries found on the person of P.W. 3 were serious in nature caused by a sharp edged weapon, which could have resulted in the culpable homicide amounting to murder, therefore, it would not be safe to hold that appellant had no intention to kill P.W. 3, consequently, I do not find any substance in the argument of learned Amicus Curiae. In the result, appeal fails and is dismissed. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court below for information along with lower court record.