Dismissed

Balvant Singh v. State and Ors.

Uttarakhand HC6 Apr 2015CRLR/157/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenged the acquittal of accused persons charged under IPC offenses. The single witness for the prosecution faced credibility issues due to admitted enmity and lack of corroboration. The High Court dismissed the revision, upholding the trial court's acquittal as not perverse.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision dismissed. The order of acquittal by the trial court is upheld.

Balvant Singh Vs State and Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Uttarakhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Revision No. 157 of 2009

¶3

Balwant Singh ...….…… Revisionist

¶4

versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Mr. V.K.Jemini, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Ms. Geeta Parihar and Ms. Shruti Joshi, Brief Holders, present for the State. Mr. K.S.Verma, Advocate, present for the respondents no. 2 to 8.

¶7

U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

¶8

The respondents no. 2 to 8 were charged by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC. Earlier, on the basis of an application u/S 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the complainant, criminal law was set into motion. After the investigation, a final report was submitted against the accused persons. Complainant filed a Protest Petition, which was allowed. The final report was dismissed. Cognizance was taken, and as has been stated earlier, the accused persons were charged for the offences indicated herein above. One of the accused, namely, Harpal Singh died and rest of the accused persons faced the trial.

¶9

When the trial began and the prosecution opened it’s case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections

¶10

¶11

147, 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC were framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW 1 Balwant Singh, PW 2 Jaipal Singh, PW 3 Dujendra alias Pelu, PW 4 Hukam Singh and PW5 Rajendra Singh were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The statements of the accused persons were under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were taken, in which they denied the prosecution story. No evidence was given in defence.

¶12

After considering the evidence on record, the trial court did not believe the prosecution story to the hilt and as a consequence thereof, the accused persons were exonerated of the charges leveled against them vide judgment and order dated 31.08.2009. Aggrieved against the same, present criminal revision has been preferred by the complainant-revisionist.

¶13

Only PW1 has supported the prosecution story. It is Balwant Singh (PW1), who set the criminal law into motion by lodging the first information report through Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. But for him, none has supported the prosecution story. Enmity between the parties is admitted. A litigation between them was also going on.

¶14

Enmity is a double edged weapon. Whereas, on the one hand a person may be implicated falsely, on the other hand, other party may also inflict blows on the first party to wreck vengeance. It cuts both ways. The litigation between the parties was pending, over a piece of land.

¶15

¶16

Keeping in view such background of the case, the trial court was required to see whether the evidence of PW 1 was sufficient to bring home the guilt to the accused persons (respondents herein) beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt or not? The trial court has replied that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the respondents to the hilt.

¶17

PW 1 has, in his examination-in-chief, supported the prosecution story. He has said that the incident took place on 23.08.2001, at 11:00 A.M. Accused persons wanted to forcibly trespass into his field. They tried to plough his field, assaulted him, gave a blow of knife and also fired upon him. He sustained injuries on his hand. He did not sustain injury of a firearm. Rajendra, Hukum Singh, Pelu Mistri and others came and intervened. [It may be noted here that none of these witnesses have supported the prosecution story ]. PW 1 went to PS Jwalapur for lodging the FIR, but the same was not lodged. Thereafter, PW 1 wrote a letter to the Superintendant of Police, Haridwar, sent the same by registered post, but to no avail. His first information report was lodged only after taking recourse to Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. After the investigation, a final report was submitted by the investigating officer [ which was rejected by the learned Magistrate ].

¶18

In his cross-examination, PW 1 stated that the accused persons assaulted him for about 15-20 minutes. Although, his clothes were also torn by the blow of knife,

¶19

¶20

but he did not hand over such clothes to the Investigating officer. He went to medically examine himself at Primary Health Centre, Bahadrabad. PW 1 also admitted that he lodged the first information report against Suresh and Surendra (respondents) earlier. They were convicted, but in appeal, they were exonerated. He also admitted that contents of his first information report were not accepted by the Police and therefore, final report was submitted. He got the place of incident inspected by the police. Jaipal’s field was in the vicinity of PW1. None, who owned the fields in the vicinity of the place of the incident, is the witness of the present incident. PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 4 did not, at all, support the prosecution story.

¶21

The Medical Officer, who examined Balwant Singh, did not come to depose before the trial court. The injury report was read in evidence because formal proof of the same was dispensed with by the learned counsel representing the respondents before the trial court.

¶22

The quality of evidence tendered by PW 1 is not such that the respondents could be held guilty of the charges levelled against them. The accused persons can be held guilty on the solitary evidence of the informant/injured, but, for that, the quality of evidence must be of superior quality, which is lacking in this case. The evidence in such cases should inspire confidence, which is not available in the instant case. When none of the witness has supported the prosecution story, only the victim has

¶23

¶24

tendered evidence against the accused persons, enmity between the parties is admitted and the Medical Officer has not come to depose before the trial court, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution was able to prove the case against the respondents beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt.

¶25

There are many a discrepancies in the evidence of PW 1, which have been aptly dealt with by the trial court. This Court need not to repeat the same for the sake of brevity. No useful purpose will be served by highlighting those infirmities in the evidence of PW1.

¶26

It is well settled law that where two views are possible, the one which is taken by the trial court in favour of the accused-respondents, should be accepted. This Court is simply doing the same.

¶27

It will be worthwhile to quote the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, (1999) 1 Supreme Court Case 166 , herein below:

¶28

“Law is well settled. While caution is the watchword in appeal against acquittal, as the trial judge has occasion to watch demeanor of witnesses, interference should not be made merely because a different conclusion could have been arrived at; the provision does not inhibit ( sic ) any restriction or limitation. Prudence demands restraint on mere probability or possibility but in perversity or misreading interference is imperative otherwise existence of power shall be rendered meaningless.”

¶29

¶30

To conclude, there is no perversity in the impugned judgment and order. The same does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The order under challenge is not intereferable.

¶31

Criminal Revision, therefore, fails and is dismissed.

¶32

(U.C. Dhyani, J.) 06.04.2015

¶33

Kaushal

¶34

Balvant Singh v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balvant Singh v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashutosh Patrick Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Dilshad Sabri Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Yashpal Singh Rawat Benam Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Atul Mishra Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Kanahiya Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Ratan Lal Lakhera Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others