State Of Uttarakhand vs Soran Singh & Others

R.C. Khulbe, J

The present appeal has been filed by the State Government against the judgment and order dated 11.05.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II/ F.T.C. Haridwar in Session Trial Nos. 202, 203, 204 and 205 of 2000, whereby the accused were not found guilty and accordingly acquitted under Section 307 IPC and under Sections 25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act.

Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that on 15.08.1998, S.I. Ravindra Kumar Chamoli, A.S.I. R.K. Sharma, Constable Ram Niranjan, and Constable Ved Prakash were on patrolling duty; when they reached near Bheemgauda, they received information through informer that some person were sitting in shed of trees. On this information the police party along with informer went there; when the police party reached at the spot, suddenly the accused Soran Singh shouted on seeing police party that the police has come and shot them; all of sudden one accused fired gunshot upon the police party, but the police parity escaped from there. Thereafter, the police party apprehended the accused at about 2.35 AM at Laljiiwala forest area; on searching one country-made-pistol and three live cartridges of 313 bore were recovered from the possession of the accused Soran Singh, while separate two knives were recovered from the possession of the accused, namely, Kayum and Ombeer, respectively. On the basis of it recovery memo Ex. Ka-1 was prepared at the spot and on the basis of the said recovery chick FIR Ex. Ka-8 was lodged at Police Station, Haridwar on 15.08.1998 at about 4:10AM.

After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheets Ex. Ka-3, under Section 307 IPC against the accused, namely, Soran Singh, Kayum and Ombeer, Ex.Ka-4, under Section 25 Arms Act, against the accused-Soran Singh, Ex.Ka-5, under Section 4/25 Arms Act against the accused-Ombeer Singh and Ex.Ka-6, under Section 4/25 Arms Act against the accused- Kayum, were submitted by the Investigation Officer. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the trial court and charges were framed on 16.07.2003 by trial court, in which they denied and claimed trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution produced PW-1, Constable Ram Niranjan Singh, PW-2, S.I. R.K. Sharma, PW-3,R.K. Chamoli, PW-4, Constable Ved Prakash and PW-5, SI. Arun Kumar Goyal.

PW-1, Constable Ram Niranjan Singh, PW-2, S.I. R.K. Sharma, PW-3 R.K. Chamoli and PW-4, Ved Prakash, Constable stated that on 15.08.1998, while they were on patrolling duty and when they reached near the bridge of Bheemgauda during patrolling, then they received information through informer that some suspicious persons were sitting in the shed of trees near Bheemgauda Road; on this information they went there, all of sudden the accused fired gunshot at the police party then the accused ran away from the spot and they were surrounded and caught; after searing them, one country-made pistol and three live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the accused-Soran Singh, two knives separate were recovered from the possession of the accused, namely, Kayum and Ombeer.

PW-5, S.I. Arun Kumar Goyal, who inspected the spot and prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of witnesses and accordingly charge sheets were submitted against the accused.

After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded.

Learned trial court by its impugned judgment and order has arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused persons. Feeling aggrieved, State Government has preferred present appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

It is argued by learned counsel for the State/appellant that the accused had fired gunshot upon the police party, who were on patrolling duty and one country-made pistol and three live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the accused-Soran Singh, while two knives were recovered from the possession of the accused, namely, Kayum and Ombeer. It is further argued that there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused under Section 307 IPC and under Arms Act.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/respondents argued that the prosecution has failed to produce the ample evidence against the present accused/ respondents and the so-called country-made pistol and three live cartridges and one empty cartridge were recovered from the possession of the accused-Soran Singh, which were not sent for FSL; and the police party did not receive any injury, hence there is no ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial court.

As per the recovery memo and FIR, the police party was on patrolling duty on 15.08.1998, they proceeded from the concerned chowki at about 21.15 hours on 15.08.1998 and as per the recovery memo the accused were apprehended at 2.35 AM, on the same day. If, the police party went from the police chowki on 15.08.1998 at about 21.15 hours then FIR should have been lodged on 16.08.1998.

From the perusal of the recovery memo Ex.Ka-1 and the chick FIR Ex. Ka-8, it is not clear that when the police party started for patrolling duty from the police chowki and when the occurrence took place and when the FIR was actually lodged. There are material contradictions between the above documents, which cast a doubt in the prosecution story. Apart from that, as per the recovery memo, one country-made pistol and three live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the accused Soran Singh. As per the evidence, the accused shot a fire from that country-made pistol, but that country-made pistol, three live cartridges and one empty cartridge were not sent for FSL Test. Apart from that, as per the evidence the accused fired a gunshot on police party from a close distance, but no injury was received by any police personnel. It is very impossible that when the accused shot the fire by the country-made pistol from a close distance, but the police party did not receive any injury.

The place of incident is Bheemgaurda Road. As per the evidence it is a busy road where public always available, but the police party did not try to take any independent witness at the spot. Where the independent witnesses were present at the spot and were able to give evidence, but the police party failed to produce them before the court below, which further casts a dent on the prosecution story.

As per the recovery memo, although country-made pistol was recovered from the accused-Soran Singh, but the FIR was silent about it, who fired on the police party at the spot. From the perusal of the evidence, it is not clear that who fired the gunshot on the police party. It is clear that, none of the police personnel receive any injuries. Without receiving any injury the trial court could not reach to the conclusion that the accused shot the fired at the spot with the intention to kill the police personnel.

From the perusal of the evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that there are not sufficient evidence to prove the case.

In the matter of Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2008 (1) CAR (SC) 235, it was opined by the Apex Court that the High Court will interfere in appeal against acquittal only where the trial court makes wrong assumptions of material facts or fails to appreciate the evidence properly. When two views being possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, then High Court is not expected to reverse acquittal merely because it would have taken the view against the accused had it tried the case.

From the perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court, thereby acquitting the respondents, and in light of the aforesaid legal proposition, I am also of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has thus, rightly acquitted the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 307 IPC and under Sections 25 and 25/4 Arms Act.

For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal preferred by the State is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Government appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order dated 11.05.2005 passed by the trial court in S.T. No.202, 203, 204 and 205 of 2000, is hereby affirmed.

Let a copy of this judgment along with the LCR be transmitted to the Court concerned.