State Of Uttaranchal vs Jeet Singh And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 686 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

State Of Uttaranchal vs Jeet Singh And Others on 10 April, 2024

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                               Judgment reserved on: 05.03.2024
                              Judgment delivered on: 10.04.2024

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
              Government Appeal No.378 of 2003
State of Uttaranchal                                 ........Appellant
                               Versus
Jeet Singh and Others                            ........Respondents
Presence:-
     Mr. K.S. Bohra, D.A.G. along with Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the
     State of Uttarakhand/appellant.
     Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
     Ms. Sudha Tamta, Amicus Curiae for respondent No.2.
     Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

State has come up in this appeal before this Court by challenging the judgment dated 22.07.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/3rd F.T.C., Udham Singh Nagar, Rudrapur in Sessions Trial No.8 of 1999, 272 of 1999 and 352 of 1999, whereby the said Court, at the conclusion of trial, has acquitted the accused namely Jeet Singh, Phool Chand @ Kallu, Dinesh @ Pappu and Dharmendra for the offence punishable under Section 460 of the Indian Penal Code by giving them the benefit of doubt. At the same time, co-accused Phool Chand @ Kallu was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 03 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of making payment of fine, he was directed to undergo 03 months' additional simple imprisonment. Since respondent No.4- Dharmendra died during the pendency of appeal, hence the appeal stood abated against him by the order dated 12.06.2019.

2. The facts shorn-off unnecessary details are that a first information report was lodged on

10.04.1998 at about 10:00 P.M. by PW-1 Amrik Singh at police station Rudrapur with the averment that his father Inder Singh stayed at the farm house. On 10.04.1998, when he along with others went to the farm house in the evening, he was told by the servant Om Prakash that the father of the informant was not seen since morning. On this information, when the informant went at the second storey of the house, he saw that some unknown miscreants by putting a wooden pole from the back, climbed on the house and committed the murder of his father and at the same time also stole his father's licensed gun of 12 bore along with a watch. On this information, the prosecution was set into the motion; the inquest report was prepared on the next day; proceedings of inquest were carried out; investigation was ensued; on 16.05.1998, accused Dinesh @ Pappu and Dharmendra admitted confessed their guilt before PW-2 Karnail Singh and PW-3 Mahendra Singh, by which, names of other accused persons came into light. On 18.05.1998, accused Phool Chand was arrested along with a double barrel gun stolen in the occurrence, for which a case under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against him. Remaining accused persons were also arrested during the course of investigation. Since, the co-accused Dharmendra was found to be less than 16 years of age at the time of occurrence, his trial was separated.

3. The charge-sheet was thereafter submitted against the accused persons and accordingly, charges were framed against them under Section 411/460 IPC, which they denied and claimed to be tried.

4. As many as 9 witnesses were produced on behalf of prosecution to prove its case. Thereafter, the statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In defence DW-1 Madan Singh was examined.

5. The trial court at the conclusion of trial has acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 460 IPC while convicted the accused Phool Chand @ Kallu under Section 411 IPC. Challenging the finding of acquittal, the State has come up in this appeal before this Court.

6. In this matter, PW-1 Amrik Singh is the informant of the case. He has reiterated the version of the FIR. PW-2 Karnail Singh and PW-3 Mahendra Singh produced on behalf of the prosecution, have stated in their statements that accused Dharmendra and Dinesh confessed their guilt of having committed the murder on Inder Singh. PW-4 Harish Singh Mehta is a witness of recovery. PW-5 Pritam Singh has deposed about confession of accused persons before him. PW-6 Surendra Pal Singh is a formal police witness, who has proved recovery of double barrel gun from accused Phool Chand @ Kallu. PW-7 Surjeet Singh is the witness who proved the Supurdginama of the wooden pillar. PW-8 Vijay Pal Gautam is a formal police witness. PW-9 SI Ram Lakhan Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the entire documents available on record. At this stage, it is apt to mention that since accused Dharmendra was juvenile at the time of

occurrence, his trial was separated.

8. It is an admitted case that this matter relates to circumstantial evidence. It has come in evidence that accused Dharmendra and Dinesh admitted their guilt before the witness PW-2 Karnail Singh and PW-3 Mahendra Singh. Admittedly, the confessional evidence is a weak type of evidence and in order to prove its case, it is necessary that the same is supported by the evidence of the other witnesses. In this matter, neither the accused persons were named in the FIR nor any material related to the occurrence was recovered from them. According to the FIR, when the informant went to the farm house, he got knowledge about his father from the servant named Om Prakash. However, that servant was neither made party not was produced, though, he could have certainly been an important witness in the matter. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary to prove that the chain of the circumstances to connect the accused with the crime is complete. However, in the case in hand, the chain appears to be incomplete. In so far as the confession of the accused person before PW-2 Karnail Singh and PW-3 Mahendra Singh is concerned, it is an admitted fact that there is a difference of 04 months' from the date of confession till their evidence was recorded in the Court.

9. A feeble attempt was made on behalf of prosecution that on the evening of date of occurrence, all the 04 accused persons were seen together near the farm house of deceased to prove this fact PW-3 Mahendra Singh was produced, but his evidence does not find support from any other witness. It is also

worthy to mention at this stage that as per the prosecution case itself, the servant Om Prakash used to stay in the farm house from morning to evening, who could have been an important witness to prove about seeing the accused persons or to prove the fact that either Dharmendra and Dinesh or any other relative was doing work in the farm house and they were ousted. However, that servant was not examined. In absence of this important chain, the evidence of PW-3 Mahendra Singh was rightly disbelieved by the trial court. It is also important to mention that in this matter, the accused persons were seen near the farm house of the deceased which cannot be said to be a circumstance of last seen, because, no actual time of the occurrence is proved and on this basis, the evidence of PW-3 Mahendra Singh against the accused Jeet Singh is not supported by any circumstance or evidence and the same was also rightly disbelieved.

10. From the prosecution story, the accused Phool Chand @ Kallu was caught on 18.05.1998 while the occurrence is of 10.04.1998 i.e. after a gap of almost more than 01 month and hence, the trial court rightly held that this recovery cannot be said to be immediate after the occurrence. Hence, the trial court rightly held that it could be construed that the accused Phool Chand @ Kallu was involved in the commission of theft of the gun; however, his role cannot be admitted in the crime.

11. Trial court also doubted the manner in which the investigation was held; that it cannot be held to be a free and impartial investigation. Trial Court also noticed that the date of last seen and that of extra

judicial confession is one and the same i.e. 16.05.1998, which appears to be doubtful.

12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons under Section 460 IPC, however, it rightly convicted only the accused Phool Chand @ Kallu under Section 411 IPC as mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment.

13. It is a tried law that when two views are possible and the view taken by the trial court is also possible, then the appellate court should be slow in interfering with the judgment of acquittal.

14. On a considerate analysis of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, I am of the view that no case for interference is made out in this matter. The appeal preferred by the State is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

15. Let a certified copy of this judgment and order along with LCR be transmitted to the Court concerned for compliance. Accused Phool Chand @ Kally has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2024. He needs not to surrender.

16. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.04.2024 PN