Uttarakhand High Court
Girish Chandra Kukreti vs 9 on 3 July, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No.175 of 2014
Girish Chandra Kukreti ........Appellant
Versus
9
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.
Garima Thapa, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General along with
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Coram: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
This Appeal is preferred by the appellant against
the judgment and order dated 31.03.2014, passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial
No.23 of 2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of
Rs.30,000/- and, in default of fine, he was sentenced to
undergo one year additional imprisonment. He has also
been convicted under Section 102-B read with Section 34
IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and, in default of
fine, he was sentenced to undergo six month additional
imprisonment. He has further been convicted under
Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to
undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of
Rs.2,000/- and, in default of fine, he was sentenced to
undergo one month additional imprisonment. It was
directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Today, the matter is listed on the 2nd bail
application (IA No.1860 of 2023).
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the
bail application.
4. This is second bail application moved by the
appellant. The first bail application was rejected by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court on 11.03.2015.
5. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant that the present case is based on
circumstantial evidence. It is further submitted that one
of the circumstances, which has been relied upon by the
learned trial court is the last seen evidence, but the
independent witness, namely, Hafiz, who had allegedly
seen the deceased with the company of the appellant has
not supported the prosecution story, when he was
examined as PW4, during trial. It is also submitted that
the prosecution case started with the lodging of the first
information report by the father of the deceased-Shri
Govind Ram Kukreti on 29.03.2012, in which, he only
reported to the Patwari Ajmer Palla-2 Nalikhal that he
came to know that his son-Umanand is lying dead at
Lunkari Tok in dhyopani in Village Chunna Maheda.
Subsequently, after two days, on 01.04.2012, an
application was moved by Govind Ram Kukreti (father of
the deceased) again to the Patwari Ajmer Palla-2, Tehsil
Kotdwar, in which the name of the appellant-Girish
Chandra Kukreti was taken for the first time along with
other co-accused.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant drew
attention of this Court to the evidence of the informant in
which the informant himself deposed before the trial court
that the report (Ext.Ka-2) which was subsequently
submitted by the informant on 01.04.2012 to the Patwari
was written by Patwari and before putting the signature
by Govind Ram Kukreti, the report was not read over to
him and he signed the report only believing the Patwari.
7. The attention of this court is also taken to the
fact that on the basis of the similar evidence, the other
co-accused were acquitted by the learned trial court,
whereas the appellant was convicted on the same set of
evidence. The appellant is in jail since the date of
judgment and further he never misused the bail during
trial on his being so released.
8. Per contra, learned State Counsel submitted
that so far as the motive is concerned, it is on record that
the deceased was a witness against the appellant. But, at
a pointed query, he admitted this fact that the same has
not been proved by any documentary evidence.
9. Since this is a case of circumstantial evidence,
therefore, the motive alleged to have been attached to the
appellant was not enough to commit such a heinous
crime.
10. Having considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties and coupled with the fact that
appellant has been under incarceration since 29.03.2014,
without expressing any opinion about the merits of the
case, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant during
the pendency of the instant appeal. Accordingly, the bail
application is allowed.
11. Let the appellant be released on bail, on
executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable
sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court
concerned.
12. Since the matter is old one and the paper book
has already been prepared and supplied to the parties
concerned, we fix the case for final hearing on
25.08.2023.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
03.07.2023
AK
