State Of Uttarakhand vs Sashi Prasad Dangwal And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2151 UK

                                              Reserved Judgment

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                   NAINITAL
           Government Appeal NO. 268 of 2007
                    (Under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C.)

State of Uttarakhand                                 .......Appellant
                              Versus

Sashi Prasad Dangwal and others                  ........Respondents


Present:- Mr. S.S. Adhikari, Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Balvinder
Singh, Brief Holder for the State.
None present for the respondents.

Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.03.2003 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Session Trial No. 49 of 1996, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 411/460 of I.P.C.

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on intervening night on 14.09.1992, an incident of robbery with murder was committed at Gas Agency in the name and style of Shiv Gas Service Agency situated at Dehradun. In the incident gas cylinders were allegedly looted by the respondents and Parmeshari, who was the watchman of the Gas Godown, was murdered. Thereafter, in the morning one Jagdish Prasad, informed Shiv Kumar Varun, proprietor of the Gas Agency, who lodged the F.I.R. of the said incident in the Police Station Dalanwala, Dehradun.

3. After receiving the information, the investigation was carried out and on the statement of Mahendra Singh and Govind Singh, the respondent were arrested along with the looted cylinders. After

completion of investigation the Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet against the respondents, thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, and the charges were framed against the present respondents under Sections 460 & 411 of I.P.C. So as to hold accused person guilty, prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses i.e. PW1 Govind Singh, PW2 Kanhaiya Lal, PW2 Shiv Kuma Varun, PW2 S.I. Surendra Singh PW5 Jagdish Prasad, PW6 S.H.O. Mahak Singh, PW7 Anil Bhatnagar and PW8 Doctor Ram Janam.

4. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they pleaded they are innocent and they are taxi drivers and taxies were booked from Taxi Stand by co-accused Vijay, who told that the cylinders belong to Government, which are taken to Sarsava. They have also examined D.W.1 Ram Chandra Raturi, who in his cross examination has stated that he is the President of the Taxi Union, and all the four accused are the drivers of the taxi; that, on 15.09.1995 all the four taxi along with driver/accused persons, were booked from their taxi stand by the co-accused Vijay, who told that the cylinders belongs to Government, which are taken to Sarsava and an entry was made in the booking register in this regard.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the evidence led by the parties, by the impugned judgment, the trial court has acquitted the respondents from the charge under Section 411/460 of I.P.C. Hence the present appeal by the State, assailing the acquittal of the accused person.

6. Learned State counsel would submit that all the witnesses are trustworthy and consistent in their testimony. He would further submit that the facts and circumstances of the case clearly establishes the involvement of the respondents in the crime, therefore, the court below has erred in law in acquitting the respondents. However, he would fairly admit that the appeal filed by the State against Vijay, who was purported as the main accused, as Government Appeal No. 75 of 2022, has already been dismissed on merits by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 16.11.2007 and the State has not approached the Hon'ble Apex Court against that judgment, thus, the judgment passed in the appeal filed against Vijay, has become final.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.

8. PW1 Govind Singh, Clerk of the Taxi Union has stated that on 14/15.09.1995 at about 8-9 P.M., when he was posted as a Booking Clerk, one person came at Taxi Stand and booked four taxies. PW2 Kanhiya Lal is a witness of Panchayatnama. PW3/Shiv Kumar Varun (informant) proprietor of Shiv Gas Agency situated at Ajabpur Danda, Dehradun stated that Jagdish Kumar came at his house and informed about the incident occurred at the Gas Agency, thereafter, he lodged the F.I.R. in the concerned Police Station. PW4 S.I. Surender Singh stated that on 15.09.1995, when he was posted at Police out Post Asharodi, on the information given by City Control Room that the gas cylinders of Shiv Gas Agency have been stolen and the watchman has been murdered, he along with other police personnel proceeded for inspection and they saw

four taxies coming from the side of Dehradun and on suspicion, they checked four taxies and recovered stolen cylinders from the said taxies, thereafter, he took the said cylinders in his possession. PW5/Jagdish Prasad has stated that he went at the place of occurrence and thereafter informed about the same to Shiv Kumar. PW6 Inspector Mehak Singh has stated that on the information given by Shiv Kumar, the case was registered and he inspected the spot and prepared the site plan. Thereafter, he went taxi stand and recorded the statements of Govind Singh (booking clerk of the taxi stand) and took his Booking Register and Booking Receipt in his possession. He also stated that he went to Asharodi Barrier, where four taxies from which 38 empty gas cylinders have been recovered along with five accused, thereafter, he prepared the recovery memo of the cylinders and also recorded their statements. PW7 Dr. Anil Bhatnagar has proved the post-mortem report. PW8 Dr. Ramjanam, Addl. Director of Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, Agra has proved the report regarding the comparison of the finger prints. On behalf of the respondents, DW1 Ram Chandra Raturi has stated that he is the President of the Taxi Union. The accused Sripal, Mustkeem, Sashi and Sandhu are the drivers of the taxies; that, on 15.09.1995, the alleged four taxies were booked from their taxi stand and entry was made in the Booking Register. The said Booking Register and Booking Receipt were also taken by him in his possession.

9. The testimony of the accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, who submitted that they are taxi drivers and their taxies were booked from taxi stand by co-accused Vijay, who told them that the cylinders belong to Government,

which are to be taken to Sarsawa. PW1 Govind Singh, Booking Clerk of the Taxi Stand has stated that on 14.09.1995, one person came at the Taxi Stand and booked four taxies from Dehradun to Sarsawa and he gave Rs.705/- as advance and in support of his statement, he relies upon the Booking Register of the taxi stand. The version of the accused persons is that they are only taxi drivers and their taxies were booked from the taxi stand and version of the accused is supported by the statements of PW1-Govind Singh and DW1 Ram Chander Raturi.

10. In the considered view of this Court, the judgment of the learned court below is based on the evidence and facts proved before it during the trial and the trial court has comprehensively examined the evidence adduced by the prosecution, therefore, there is no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order dated 28.03.2003 acquitting the respondents, thus, the same is herby upheld. It is also admitted that the Government Appeal against the acquittal of the main accused, namely, Vijay has already been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 16.11.2007 and the said judgment has become final, in the absence of any appeal by the State before Hon'ble Supreme Court.

11. In view of the above, the Government Appeal is dismissed.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 09.08.2023 Mamta