State of Uttarakhand vs Govind Singh & others

PER: RAJIV SHARMA, J

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J

This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 05.10.2010, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No.09 of 2009,

whereby the respondents-accused Govind Singh, who was charged with and tried for the offences under Section 307, 504, 506(2) of IPC, accused

Kundal Singh, who was charged with and tried for the offence under Section 307 read with Sections 109 and 504 of IPC and accused Smt. Kamlesh

Khadayat, who was charged with and tried for the offence under Section 504 of IPC, were acquitted.

The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 20.10.2008 at 3:30 PM, when PW1 Mohan Singh, the father of Sundar Singh was sitting in the

shop, his neighbour Kundal Singh, his son Govind Singh and his daughter-in-law Kamlesh started abusing his father. They are inimically deposed

against them. Govind Singh was carrying Badiyath in his hand. Govind Singh with intention to kill his father gave a Badiyath blow on the head of his

father. His father collapsed. Kundal Singh kicked him. He and his mother had come to offer tea to his father. Govind Singh threatened them. His

father was taken to hospital. Blood was administered. The matter was investigated and the challan was put up after completing all the codal

formalities. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in its support. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section

313 of Cr.P.C. They have denied the case of the prosecution. The accused were acquitted vide judgment dated 05.10.2010.

Learned counsel for the State has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment dated 05.10.2010.

We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment carefully.

In the present case, the incident has taken place on 20.07.2008 at 3:30 PM. However, the FIR was registered on 21.07.2008. There is delay of

almost 24 hours in registering the FIR. The distance between place of incident and police station is only 8 KM. It is true that there can be delay in

lodging the FIR but it has to be explained. In the present case, the delay has not been explained satisfactorily.

PW1 Mohan Singh is the injured witness. According to him, he was sitting outside on the bench, when he was assaulted by Kundal Singh, Govind

Singh and Kamlesh.

PW2 Sundar Singh has categorically stated in the FIR that his father was sitting inside the shop. In his cross-examination, he has also admitted that

the accused has filed a case against them. He has also admitted that there was enmity between the parties for the last ten years.

PW3 Smt. Bhagirathi Devi is the wife of PW1 Mohan Singh. She has deposed that she along with her son left the house on 20.07.2008 and when

they reached near the shop of her husband, they saw accused giving beatings to her husband. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that there

was enmity between the parties for the last 10-15 years.

PW5 Dr. B.S. Yadav has deposed that the injury received by PW1 Mohan Singh was not possible by the weapon used by the accused. He was not

in a position to say whether the injured has received any internal injury. He has categorically deposed that the size of the injury given in the medical

report was not possible by the blow given by Badiyath.

The prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses, though as per exhibit A1, there was house in close vicinity of the place of incident.

According to FIR, the accused gave beatings to PW1 Mohan Singh inside the shop, however, PW1 Mohan Singh has deposed that he was sitting

outside of his shop on the bench. There was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which has not been explained at all. There was no fracture as per the

statement of PW4. There is a long standing enmity between the parties.

The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, there is no occasion for us to interfere with the

well reasoned judgment of the trial court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.