Uttarakhand High Court
Sher Singh & Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand on 21 July, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Jail Appeal No.41 of 2022
Sher Singh & another ........Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Akshay Pradhan, learned Amicus Curiae for the
appellants.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General along with
Mr. Rakesh Joshi and Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned Brief
Holdersz for the State.
Coram: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
This jail appeal is preferred by the appellants
against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2022,
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima,
District U.S. Nagar in Sessions Trial No.28 of 2020,
whereby the appellants have been convicted under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- each
with default stipulation of additional rigorous
imprisonment of six months'. They have also been
convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to
undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of
Rs.2,000/- each with default stipulation of additional
simple imprisonment of two months'. It was directed that
both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Learned Amicus Curiae press the bail
application (IA No.2 of 2023) for the appellant-Sher Singh.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the
bail application.
4. The case of the prosecution starts with lodging
of the first information report with Police Station
Khatima, District U.S. Nagar when on 11.10.2019, the
unknown dead body was found at the bank of Nadanna
Canal, the dead body was identified by Pramdeep Singh,
younger brother of the deceased and according to him,
the body which was found was of his brother-Mandeep
Singh S/o Raj Kumar Singh. On 12.10.2019, he further
submitted a first information report naming the
appellants and one unknown person that since all the
three persons were friends and have seen lastly with the
deceased, it was stated by the informant that he has firm
believe that Mandeep Singh was killed by these persons.
On the basis of this first information report, a chick FIR
was registered against the appellants and one unknown
person under Sections 302 & 201 IPC at Police Station
Khatima, District U.S. Nagar on 12.10.2019 at 9:00 p.m.
5. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant
submitted that the only evidence with the prosecution
relied upon for conviction is a shirt, which according to
the prosecution, was recovered at the pointing out of the
appellant. Apart from this, the other circumstances which
are there against the appellants are of last seen. He also
submitted that the case is based on circumstantial
evidence, the chain of circumstances has not been
completed and the link is not connected so well, in order
to implicate the appellant.
6. Learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that
the motive which has been attached to commit the crime
upon the appellant is a very weak motive because as per
the case of the prosecution, the wife of deceased-Mandeep
Singh was married earlier with the co-accused Shyam
Singh and the appellant-Sher Singh is the cousin of
Shyam Singh. He also submitted that so far as the
recovery of bloodstained shirt is concerned, PW7 says
that while pointing out the recovery of the shirt, appellant
told that the shirt was put on by him on the date of
incident while PW12- SI Devendra Guarav just made a
contradictory statement saying that the appellant while
making the recovery of the shirt told the police that the
shirt was that of the deceased. Therefore, such kind of
recovery allegedly made at the pointing out of the
appellant does not hold any water.
7. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General
supported the case of the prosecution and said that the
motive was there to commit the murder because
appellants-Shyam Singh and Sher Singh are cousins. So
far as the recovery of shirt at the pointing out of the
appellant is concerned, he admitted on the basis of the
record that there are material contradictions in the
statement made by PW7 and PW12.
8. In this view of the matter, without expressing
any opinion about the merits of the case, we are inclined
to grant bail to the appellant no.1-Sher Singh during the
pendency of the instant appeal. Accordingly, the bail
application is allowed.
9. Let the appellant no.1-Sher Singh be released
on bail, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two
reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction
of Magistrate concerned.
10. List this matter in due course for final hearing.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
21.07.2023
AK
