Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Sadan Pal" And In Sessions on 2 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
2nd MAY, 2023
GOVERNMENT APPEAL NO.522 of 2007
Between:
State of Uttarakhand .....Appellant
and
Sadan Pal .....Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. S.S. Adhikari, Deputy
Advocate General with Mr.
B.S. Thind, Brief Holder.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Sagar Kothari, Amicus
Curiae.
With
GOVERNMENT APPEAL NO.523 of 2007
Between:
State of Uttarakhand .....Appellant
and
Bijendra .....Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. S.S. Adhikari, Deputy
Advocate General with Mr.
B.S. Thind, Brief Holder.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Sagar Kothari, Amicus
Curiae.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
These two Government Appeals have been filed
against a common judgment dated 08.08.2007, passed by
learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions
Trial No.334 of 2004, "State vs. Sadan Pal" and in Sessions
Trial No.261 of 2005, "State vs. Bijendra", by which, the
respondents - accused persons have been acquitted of the
charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short, "IPC"). Government Appeal No.522 of 2007 will
be leading file.
2. In brief, the prosecution's case is that one Liaquat
was abducted. Therefore, a Case Crime No. 03 of 2004
under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was
registered. On 10.01.2004, Station Officer, Chandan Singh
Chauhan (PW3) and Constable Ram Kumar (PW6) along with
other police personnel were on patrolling duty for the
purpose of maintaining law and order and were searching for
the wanted criminals. When they reached Dhanpura,
Chandan Singh Chauhan received an information from
Chandra Mohan Singh Negi, Station Officer, Police Station,
Khanpur that accused persons of Case Crime No.03 of 2004,
registered under Section 364 IPC, are fled away and they
were searching them. Chandra Mohan Singh Negi further
informed him that Liaquat has escaped from the clutches of
the miscreants and is now with them. After receiving the
said information, Chandan Singh Chauhan (PW3) along with
other police personnel reached the bus stand, Dhanpura.
Sub-Inspector Ranjeet Singh (PW4) along with other police
personnel met at bridge. They saw that accused persons on
a motorcycle (Hero Honda) were coming from the front.
Seeing the police personnel, they ran away towards forest.
At that time public witness Dilshad (PW1) and Mohd. Ismail
(PW2) were present there. Meanwhile, Station Officer,
Laksar Preetpal Singh Rautela (PW7) reached there with
other police personnel. Accused persons, who were sitting on
a motorcycle, opened fire on the police party. Accused -
Sadan Pal was apprehended by the police party. Accused
Bijendra ran away from the spot. Accused - Sadan Pal was
arrested. At that time, Liaquat was present and he identified
the accused persons and told that he was abducted by them
on 03.01.2004. Accused-Sadan Pal told that the name of the
person who ran away is Bijendra. The said motorcycle Hero
Honda was taken into possession vide Recovery Memo (Ext.
Ka1). The First Information Report (Ext. Ka3) was lodged by
Sub-Inspector Chandan Singh Chauhan (PW3) on
10.01.2004 at 19:00 hrs. Charge-sheet (Ext. Ka2) was filed
after completion of investigation.
3. Charge under Section 307 IPC was framed.
Respondents - accused persons pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused
persons, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses.
5. Statements of the accused persons were recorded
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
They denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the
prosecution.
6. Respondents- accused persons did not adduce any
defence evidence.
7. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State, submitted that Trial Court has
committed an error by taking into consideration of the fact
that there are contradictions in the statements of the police
witnesses and public witnesses. Contradictions are natural.
Two public witnesses, namely, Dilshad (PW1) and Mohd.
Ismail (PW2) have supported the case of the prosecution.
Therefore, the impugned judgment dated 08.08.2007 is
liable to be set-aside.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned
Amicus Curiae, has supported the impugned judgment.
9. The law is well settled that the judgment of
acquittal strengthen the presumption of the innocence of the
accused. Equally, it is the duty of the Court to see that the
guilt does not escape from the punishment. Therefore, I
have carefully assessed the evidence, adduced by the
prosecution.
10. (PW1) Dilshad has deposed that he was in his
village on 10.01.2004. He heard that the miscreants were
running towards north on a bike. He, Mohd. Ismail (PW2)
and others chased the miscreants. He (PW1) chased on a
bike. The miscreants were asked to stop. They (miscreants)
opened fire. They fired around ten shots, but, no one was
hit. Accused-Sadan Pal was apprehended at 2:30 p.m.
Sadan Pal had named the absconding person as Bijendra.
11. (PW2) Mohd. Ismail has stated that he was in his
house on 10.01.2004. He heard that the miscreants were
running towards north on a motorcycle. The police and
others chased them. He also chased them on foot. They
were chased for about one and half kilometre. The
miscreants fired at them, which did not hit anyone. Sadan
Pal was apprehended at around 4:00 p.m. He told that the
person who ran away from the spot was Bijendra.
12. (PW3) Sub-Inspector Chandan Singh Chauhan,
(PW4) Sub-Inspector Ranjeet Singh, (PW6) Constable Ram
Kumar and (PW7) Preetpal Singh Rautela are members of
the chasing party. They in their examination-in-chief
reiterated the statements made in the recovery memo.
(PW5) Sub-Inspector R.S. Rawat is Investigating Officer.
13. The prosecution has to establish beyond all
reasonable doubt that the alleged offence was committed by
the respondents-accused persons.
14. According to examination-in-chief of (PW1)
Dilshad, he chased the accused persons on his bike.
(PW2) Mohd. Ismail has stated that accused persons
were chased for about one and half kilometre and
he (PW2)was chasing them on foot. In the said
circumstances, these statements are not found reliable.
(PW1) Dilshad has stated that the empty cartridges were
collected by the police, while (PW3) Sub-Inspector Chandan
Singh Chauhan has stated in his cross-examination that no
bullet or empty cartridge were recovered from the spot.
15. In the present matter, there are material
contradictions in the statements of the prosecution's
witnesses. Therefore, the statements of the prosecution's
witnesses do not inspire confidence.
16. (PW3) Sub-Inspector Chandan Singh Chauhan has
deposed that the bullet fired by the accused persons neither
hit any person nor hit the jeep. It is difficult to believe that
no one was shot where it is being said that about ten rounds
of firing took place.
17. A Case Crime No. 3 of 2004 under Section 364 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the
accused persons. Accused persons were charged of
abducting one Liaquat. In the trial of that case, Liaquat had
turned hostile and had deposed that he did not recognise the
accused persons. According to the prosecution, Liaquat was
present at the spot, but the prosecution neither examined
him nor mentioned any reason for not examining him. Under
the said circumstances, it appears that if Liaquat had been
examined by the prosecution, his evidence would not have
supported the prosecution's case.
18. On a detailed examination and scrutiny of the
evidence, produced by the prosecution, this Court upholds
the view taken by the Trial Court. In my considered view,
the prosecution has failed to establish the commission of
alleged offence by the respondents-accused persons beyond
all reasonable doubt. They deserve benefit of doubt. I am,
therefore, in complete agreement with the view taken by
learned Trial Court and see no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order, passed by learned Trial
Court.
19. As a result, both the Government Appeals are
liable to be dismissed. The Government Appeals are
dismissed accordingly.
20. A copy of this judgment be placed in the
connected Government Appeal.
__________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
nd
Dt: 2 May, 2023
Shiksha
