Sobendra Singh and Others vs The State

Dharam Veer, J.—Both these criminal appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 12.6.1996 passed by Special Judge, Uttarkashi, hence, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

These criminal appeals, preferred by the appellants u/s 374(2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.6.1996 passed by Special Judge, Uttarkashi in Special Trial No. 20 of 1994, State v. Sobendra Singh whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted the accused/appellants Sobendra Singh, Trilok Singh, Chandra Mohan Singh, Jagjiwan Singh and Jagjitendra Singh and two other co-accused persons, namely, Ravindra Singh and Trepan Singh under Sections 147 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC) and sentenced each of them to pay fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 147 IPC and further fine of Rs. 250/- each u/s 323 r/w 149 IPC.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.

In brief, the prosecution case is that P.W.2 Gumanu lodged a report in the police station on 26.4.1993 stating that he and some other persons are Harijan by caste and are resident of Village Dhiwara. They were keeping watch of their crops. At about 4 PM accused/appellants Sobendra Singh S/o Vikram Singh, Trilok Singh S/o Chandra Mohan Singh, Chandra Mohan Singh S/o Sunder Singh, Jagjivan Singh S/o Devendra Singh, Jagjitendra S/o Fateh Singh and coaccused Ravindra Singh S/o Vikram Singh and Trepan Singh S/o Fateh Singh, all residents of Village Kumar Kot, were damaging their wheat crop from cattle. When they were opposed by the complainant and others then the above-named accused persons, by making unlawful assembly, committed Marpeet with Jaggu and Saklu and also abused them and the ladies of their families. Suriya, Chandru and Bijendra intervened in between and save their life. Thereafter the accused persons went away by saying vkt rks rqEgkjh tku cp x;h ekSdk ikus ij nQuk fn;s tkvksxs rqe Mwe ds cPps gekjk eqdkcyk djus yx x;s gSA rqEgsa lcd fl[kk nsaxsA With the same averments, First Information Report was lodged by P.W.2 Gumanu on 26.4.1993 at P.S. Purola, Uttarkashi. That FIR is Ext.Ka-3. On the basis of this FIR, Chik FIR of the case was prepared by Head Constable Bhawan Singh. Necessary entries were also made in the G.D., copy of which is Ext.Ka-5. The investigation of this case was entrusted to Station Officer S.C. Rathore. On the same day, injured Sakal Chandra and Jaggu were medically examined by P.W.1 Dr. Rupendra Gupta, Medical Officer, P.S.C., Purola, Uttarkashi at 08:45 PM and 9 PM, respectively. Injury report of Sakal Chandra is Ext.Ka-1 and that of Jaggu is Ext.Ka-2. During the course of investigation, the I.O. recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared the site-plan of the place of occurrence i.e. Ext.Ka-6 and after completing the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet against the accused/appellants and the coaccused, which is Ext.Ka-7.

Learned Munsif Magistrate, Uttarkashi committed the case to the court of Sessions on 4.8.1994, after giving necessary copies to the accused/appellants and the co-accused, as provided u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

On 22.2.1995, Special Judge, Uttarkashi framed the charge u/s 147 of IPC and Section 3(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused/appellants and the co-accused. The charge was read over and explained to each of the accused/appellants and co-accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Dr. Rupendra Kumar, who medically examined the injured and prepared the injury reports Ext.Ka-1 and 2, P.W.2 Gumanu, eyewitness and complainant of the case, P.W.3 Jaggu, Injured eyewitness, P.W.4 Bijendra, independent eyewitness and P.W.5 Head Constable Bhawan Singh.

Thereafter the statement of the accused/appellants and co-accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The oral and documentary evidence were put to each of them in question form, who have denied the allegations made against them. However, they did not produce any oral or documentary evidence in their defence.

After appreciating the entire evidence on record and hearing learned Counsel for the parties, learned Special Judge, Uttarkashi vide his judgment and order dated 12.6.1996 convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants and the co-accused as stated above. Against the said judgment and order dated 12.6.1996, the accused/appellants have preferred this appeal.

Before further discussion, it is pertinent to mention here the injury report (Ex.Ka-1) of the injured Sakal Chand who was examined on 26.4.1993 at 08:45 PM by P.W.1 Dr. Rupendra Kumar, which is as under:

(i) 1 x 0.5 and 1 x 0.75 cm size two reddish abrasion present on inner aspect of root of right thumb.

(ii) Tenderness present on back of neck both shoulder girdle and front and sides of left knee.

Opinion: All the injuries are fresh caused by blunt object simple in nature.

Injured Jaggu was also medically examined on the same day at 9 PM by the same medical officer. Injury report of Jaggu is Ext.Ka-2, which is as under:

(i) 6 cm long oblique reddish linear abrasion present on back of left forearm 8 cm above left wrist joint.

(ii) Tenderness present on upper side of back of left shoulder blade and on 3 finger width area on pubic region just above root of penis.

Opinion: All the injuries are simple. Duration fresh (1) Caused by pointed object while (2) by blunt object.

To prove the above-noted injury reports, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Dr. Rupendra Kumar, who has stated that all the injuries of Sakal Chandra were simple in nature and were fresh and were caused by some blunt object. He further stated that injury No. 1 of Jaggu was caused by Lathi and injury No. 2 was caused by some blunt object and these were possible to come on the same day i.e. on 26.4.1993 at 4 PM.

To prove its case further, the prosecution has examined P.W.2 Gumanu, who has stated that on the date of incident there were wheat crop in his field. On 26.4.1993 at 4 PM cattle of Village Kumarkot were grazing in his field. Sakal Chand and Jaggu went to oust the cattle from the fields. He saw that accused/appellants and co-accused committed Marpeet with Sakal Chand and Jaggu and threatened them to life. He, Bijendra and Surya went at the place of occurrence and intervened in between the fight. He brought the injured to house and thereafter took them to hospital where medical examination of the injured was done. Thereafter he lodged the report in the police station. He has proved the report Ext.Ka-3. This witness was cross-examined at length by the defence counsel but nothing has come out in his statement which may create any doubt in his statement. The statement of this witness is reliable, believable and inspires confidence.

P.W.3 Jaggu and P.W.4 Bijendra have corroborated the statements of P.W.2 Gumanu.

P.W.5 Head Constable has stated that on 26.4.1993 he was posted in the aforesaid post at P.S. Purola. On that day, First Information Report of the said incident was lodged in the police station on the basis of which he has prepared Chik FIR Ext.Ka-4 of the case and made necessary entries in the G.D., copy of which is Ext.Ka-5. He further stated that the investigation of the case was entrusted to Chandra Singh, who during the course of investigation has prepared the site-plan of the place of occurrence, which is Ext.Ka-6 and on completion of the investigation submitted the charge sheet Ext.Ka-7 against the accused persons.

Thereafter the statement of the accused/appellants and co-accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The oral and documentary evidence was put to each of them in question form, who have denied the allegations made against them. However, they did not produce any oral or documentary evidence in their defence.

Sri Lalit Sharma, learned amicus curiae as well as Sri Sudhir Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants have argued that the prosecution has not proved its case against the appellants/accused beyond reasonable doubt. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that P.W.2 Gumanu, in his deposition, has clearly stated that on the date of incident i.e. on 26.4.1993 there were wheat crop in his field. At 4 PM cattle of Village Kumarkot were grazing in his field. Sakal Chand and Jaggu went to oust the cattle from the fields. He saw that accused/appellants Sobendra Singh, Trilok Singh, Chandra Mohan Singh, Jagjiwan Singh, Jogendra Singh and two other coaccused Ravindra Singh and Trepan Singh committed Marpeet with Sakal Chand and Jaggu and also threatened them to life. On this, he, Bijendra and Surya went at the place of occurrence and intervened in between and saved the injured from the accused. He brought the injured to house and thereafter took them to hospital where medical examination of the injured was done. After that he lodged the report in the police station. The evidence of this witness is reliable, believable and natural and inspires implicit confidence and the same also gets full corroboration from the evidence of P.W.3 Jaggu, injured witness and P.W.4 Bijendra, who too have fully supported the prosecution case in their statement. Apart from above, the evidence of P.W.2 Gumanu further gets full corroboration from the injury reports Ex.Ka-1 and Ka-2 as well as from the medical evidence of P.W.1 Dr. Rupendra Kumar. All these facts and circumstances give full support and, therefore, wholly corroborate the statement of the complainant Gumanu. Thus, from the evidence discussed above, it is proved that on the date of incident i.e. on 26.4.1993 at 4 PM accused/appellants Sobendra Singh, Trilok Singh, Chandra Mohan Singh, Jagjiwan Singh and Jogendra Singh along with two other coaccused persons, namely, Ravindra Singh and Trepan Singh, formed an unlawful assembly knowingly and in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, they left their cattle in the field of complainant in order to damage the crop of complainant and on the opposition being raised by the complainant and some others, the above-named accused persons, all members of that unlawful assembly, inflicted injuries to Jaggu and Sakal Chand. In this way, the prosecution has fully successful in proving its case against the appellants/accused u/s 147 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC and I am of the considered view that the trial court was correct and justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants/accused as discussed above and I concur the view taken by the trial court in convicting and sentencing the appellants/accused as discussed above.

For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals are devoid of any merits and are accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order dated 12.6.1996 passed by Special Judge, Uttarkashi in Special Trial No. 20 of 1994, State v. Sobendra Singh in convicting and sentencing the appellants/accused needs no interference by this Court and is hereby made affirmed.

Let the lower court be sent back.