Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand vs Rinku on 21 May, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
Date when Reserved-May 17, 2024
Date of Pronouncement- May 21, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Government Appeal No. 72 of 2015
State of Uttarakhand .. Appellant
Vs.
Rinku ...Respondent
With
Government Appeal No. 73 of 2015
State of Uttarakhand .. Appellant
Vs.
Nitin @ Chhogi ...Respondent
With
Government Appeal No. 74 of 2015
State of Uttarakhand .. Appellant
Vs.
Raj Kumar Maurya and others ...Respondents
With
Government Appeal No. 75 of 2015
State of Uttarakhand .. Appellant
Vs.
Raj Kumar Maurya ...Respondent
With
Government Appeal No. 76 of 2015
State of Uttarakhand .. Appellant
Vs.
Vinod @ Dhoni ...Respondent
Present: Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Dy.A.G. with Mr. Rakesh Kr. Joshi, learned B.H. for
the State- appellant.
Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the respondents.
Coram: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Per: Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the appeal.
2. These appeals have been filed by the State of
Uttarakhand against the judgment and order dated 18.11.2014
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun in S.T. No.
14/2011 (State Vs. Raj Kumar Maurya and others ), under Sections
452/ 307/ 34/ 506 I.P.C. and other connected S.T. No. 56/ 2012
(State Vs. Rinku ), under Section 25/4 of Arms Act, S.T. No.
83/2012 (State Vs. Raj Kumar Maurya), under Section 25/4 of
Arms Act, S.T. No. 98/2012 (State Vs. Nitin @ Chhogi), under
Section 25/4 of Arms Act and S.T. No. 99/2012 (State Vs. Vinod@
Dhoni), under Section 25/ 4 of Arms Act. (All connected Sessions
Trial are under Section 25/4 of Arms Act).
3. All these Sessions Trial were decided by the learned
trial court by this common judgment and order, whereby, the
respondents/accused were acquitted from the charges.
4. The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the First
Information Report is that on 01.10.2010 at 9.30 p.m., a First
Information Report was lodged by Neeraj Bhandari S/o Sri Kishan
Singh Bhandari at Police Station Raipur, Dehradun against four
accused persons, 1. Raj Kumar Maurya, 2. Rinku, 3. Vinod @
Dhoni and 4. Nitin @ Chhogi. As per the allegations made in the
F.I.R. that on 01.10.2010 at about 6.00 p.m., when brother of the
informant Neeraj Bhandari, Dhiraj Bhandari was sitting in his office
at Tunwala Chowk, all the respondents/ accused entered in his
office and started beating him with sword and Khunkris, which
resulted into injuries on the hand and fingers of his brother. It is
further alleged that on an alarm raised, people gathered and the
respondents/accused escaped from the spot giving threat to life to
his brother in future. Thereafter, according to the informant, he and
his injured brother came to the Police Station Raipur, an oral
complaint was made, whereby, he was directed for getting the
medical examination of injured first, at this, the informant took his
brother to Coronation Hospital and after medical treatment and with
medical report, the F.I.R. was lodged with the Police Station as
stated above. On the basis of which, a Case Crime No. 201 of 2010,
under Sections 452/307/ 326/506 IPC was registered against the
accused persons.
5. After registration of the crime, the investigation was
started on the same day and the accused were arrested on the same
day in the midnight of 1/2.10.2010 at about 00.15 a.m. and on being
searched, they were found in possession of Khunkris and sharp
edged weapons, on asking they were unable to produce any license
for keeping those weapons and accordingly, a Case Crime No.
202/2010, under Section 25/4 of Arms Act registered against
respondent/accused Raj Kumar Maurya, Case Crime No.
203/2010, under Section 25/ 4 of Arms Act against
respondent/accused Nitin @ Chhogi, Case Crime No. 204/2010,
under Section 25/ 4 of Arms Act against Rinku and Case Crime No.
205/2010, under Section 25/4 of Arms Act against Vinod@Chhogi,
were registered against them separately.
6. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted
before the learned Magistrate, against all the respondents/accused
under Sections 307/452/324/506 IPC and four separate charge-
sheets under section 25/4 of Arms Act were also submitted. Since,
all the offences were committed in the same transaction, all these
Sessions Trials were connected and consolidated for the purpose of
evidence and the S.T. No. 14/2011 (State Vs. Raj Kumar Maurya
and others) was made the leading case for convenience.
7. Prosecution and defence were heard on the point of
charge in the Sessions Court. All the respondents/accused namely 1.
Raj Kumar Maurya, 2. Rinku, 3. Vinod @ Dhoni and 4. Nitin @
Chhogi were charged u/s 452/307/34/506 IPC and each of the
respondents/accused were separately charged for the offence u/s
25/4 of Arms Act. They pleaded not guilty and prayed for trial.
8. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses
Dhiraj Bhandari @ Sonu- injured P.W.-1, Neeraj Bhandari -
informant as P.W.-2, Dr. Sandeep Chaudhary P.W.-3, S.I. Diwan
Singh P.W.- 4 and the other witnesses of fact regarding offence
under Section 25/4 of Arms Act, Subhash Rana P.W.-5, Constable
Jasbir Singh P.W.-6, Constable Anil Kumar P.W.-7, S.I. Manohar
Ram P.W.-8 and Constable Prateek as P.W.-9.
9. The prosecution further proved the documentary
evidence, medical report Ext. Ka-1, Fard for taking possession of
cloths of injured Ext. Ka-2, F.I.R. Ext. Ka-3, medical report Ext.
Ka-4, arrest memo Ext. Ka-5, information memo Ext. Ka-6,
recovery memo of Khunkris Ext. Ka-7, arrest memo Ext. Ka-8,
Naksha Nazri Ext. Ka-9, other Naksha Nazri Ext. Ka-10, Charge-
sheet Ext. Ka-11, examination papers Ext. Ka-12, Chick F.I.R. Ext.
Ka-13, copy of G.D. Ext. Ka-14 to Ka-16, Naksha Nazri of
recovery of arms Ext. Ka-17, Chick F.I.R. of illegal arms Ext. Ka-
18, copy of G.D. Ext. Ka-19, charge-sheet against the
respondents/accused persons U/s 25/4 of Arms Act Ext. Ka-20 to
Ka-23, F.S.L. Report Ext. Ka-24 and Ka-25. After completion of
prosecution evidence, the respondents/accused were examined
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., who denied the incident and stated
that due to enmity, they were rounded up in this prosecution falsely,
as the informant was compelling to them to sell the property on a
very meager price and the prosecution was launched with the
connivance of the police.
10. The learned Sessions Judge by reason of the impugned
judgment and order dated 18.11.2014 acquitted all the
respondents/accused in S.T. No. 14/2011 (State Vs. Raj Kumar
Maurya and others) of charges U/s 452/307/34/506 IPC and also in
other connected Sessions Trial Numbers of all the charges
punishable under Section 25/4 of Arms Act. The learned Sessions
Judge recorded the findings of acquittal in favour of the
respondents/accused for the reasons that the prosecution story was
disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. It is against this
judgment of acquittal, all these Leave to Appeal Applications have
been filed with the Government Appeals.
11. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
12. The learned State Counsel in support of the appeals
would submit that the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun ignored
the vital piece of evidence on record and without considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, acquitted the
respondents/accused on the ground that no public witness was
associated with the alleged recovery of weapons from the
possession of the respondents/accused persons. The learned
Sessions Judge gave further reasoning to acquit the
respondents/accused that the respondents/accused persons were
intercepted and search was made, no such material as money, watch
and other articles were recovered from their possession, only
weapons were recovered; according to learned Sessions Judge that
makes whole the prosecution story doubtful. It is argued by the
learned DAG for the State that from the F.I.R., statement of P.W.-1
Dhiraj Bhandari @ Sonu/injured, P.W.-8 S.I. Manohar Ram and
P.W.- 6 Constable Jasbir Singh and other witnesses produced by the
prosecution, the prosecution was successful in proving its case
beyond all reasonable doubt.
13. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge
committed an error of law and facts, while recording the findings of
acquittal of respondents/accused by saying that the prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the
respondents/accused.
14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents
/accused Mr. Pawan Mishra took us through the findings recorded
by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment and order
dated 18.11.2014 and supported the judgment saying that the
acquittal was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge mainly on the
ground that the medical report did not support the version of P.W.-
1- injured, P.W.-3 Dr. Sandeep Chaudhary deposed in his evidence
that on medical examination of the injured, he did not found any cut
injury on the back left shoulder of P.W.-1- injured as stated by him;
rather only a sign of scratch was found. The learned Trial Court
recorded the finding that there were material contradictions in the
statement of P.W.-1-injured, P.W.-2- informant and according to
the learned Sessions Judge, the medical report does not support the
version of the prosecution that the injuries were caused in mar-peet,
rather such injuries could possibly be sustained in an accident or by
some other manner. The learned counsel for respondents /accused
also drew the attention of this Court that no motive was assigned to
the respondents/accused to cause such injuries to the injured- P.W.-
1. The attention was also drawn to the fact that the evidence, which
could have been submitted by the prosecution, was the evidence of
blood stains allegedly found on the wall of the shop and some
photographs thereof were taken by Ankit Sharma on the next day of
the incident, but this fact can also not come to the rescue of the
prosecution, mainly for the reason that Ankit Sharma, who
allegedly took the photographs of the scene of occurrence was not
examined, neither the negatives of photographs were produced nor
did prove before the learned court below.
15. So far as the charges punishable under Section 25/4 of
Arms Act is concerned, the same was also disbelieved by the
learned trial court, according to Mr. Pawan Mishra, the learned
counsel for the respondents/accused , for the reason that no public
witness was there in the evidence of recovery and the arrest was
also found very doubtful by the learned trial court for the reason
that the police story of arresting these persons in midnight was high
impossible as discussed by the learned Sessions Judge.
16. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused took
us to the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge in page-9
of the judgment and order and submitted that the recovery of only
weapons and no other articles from the person of the
respondents/accused was found highly unbelievable and were also
found very unnatural by the learned trial court and consequently
disbelieved the story of search and recovery put forth by the
prosecution.
17. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and
carefully gone through the impugned judgment and order dated
18.11.2014 with the help of the learned counsels for the parties and
also gone through the evidence available on record. We found no
illegality in the judgment and order, by which the
respondents/accused were acquitted of the charges punishable under
Sections 452/307/34/506 IPC and the charges punishable under
section 25/4 of Arms Act, in connected Sessions Trial Numbers.
18. The appeals are without any merit and the same are,
accordingly, dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
May 21, 2024
Rdang
