Uttarakhand High Court
21 March vs Ravindra Singh on 21 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:2059
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Leave Application No. 107 of 2017
In
Criminal Appeal No.231 of 2017
21 March, 2025
Devendra Singh --Appellant
Versus
Ravindra Singh --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:
Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Rakesh
Negi, learned counsel for appellant.
None present for respondent.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Despite service of notice upon respondent and filing
of Vakalatnama by Mr. Nandan Arya, learned counsel and Mr.
M.S. Dhapola, learned counsel, there is no representation on
behalf of respondent today in the Court. Since, it is an old matter
of the year 2017, hence, this Court itself proceeded to decide the
present matter.
2. The present special leave to appeal has been filed by
the appellant/complainant-Devendra Singh against the judgment
and order dated 15.07.2017 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Almora in Criminal Case No.485 of 2015 Devendra
Singh Vs. Ravindra Singh, whereby, the said Court has acquitted
the respondent-accused for the charge of offence punishable
under Sections 323 and 504 IPC.
3. The facts in the nutshell are that on 14.07.2015, the
appellant/complainant reached at a tea shop in Kosi at 06:15 PM.
After having tea, at about 06:20 PM, on the way of his house, the
respondent-accused came; hurled filthy abuses to him and
threatened him of dire consequences. The respondent got hold of
2025:UHC:2059
neck of appellant/complainant and hit a fist on his chest. The
appellant/complainant somehow saved himself from the clutches
of the respondent and began to run towards his house and
subsequently, he reached at Patwari Chowki, where, his both
children has already reached. At that time, Patwari was called on
his mobile, but he did not come.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid background facts, the
complaint was filed by the appellant/complainant. It was
registered and statement of appellant/complainant was recorded
under Section 200 Cr.P.C., whereas, one Harish Singh was
examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the
statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.,
respondent/accused was summoned in the Court to face the trial
for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 IPC.
5. The respondent/accused in his statement under
Section 251 Cr.P.C. stated that all the averments made by the
appellant/complainant are incorrect.
6. The appellant in compliance of provisions of Section
254 of Cr.P.C., produced three witnesses CW-1
appellant/complainant himself, CW-2 Sh. Harish Singh Bisht and
CW-3 Sh. Santosh Singh Bisht. Thereafter, the statement of
respondent was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which,
he denied the allegations and stated that the witnesses were
deposing against him falsely due to enmity. In his evidence, he
produced himself as DW-1.
7. The trial court at the end of trial, came to a
conclusion that the appellant/complainant failed to prove its case
against the respondent beyond all reasonable doubts and
accordingly, it acquitted the respondent/accused. Hence, this
criminal appeal along with leave to appeal application.
2025:UHC:2059
8. In this matter, total three witnesses were produced on
behalf of the appellant/complainant. CW-1 is the victim and the
sole witness of the occurrence, who has stated about the
commission of occurrence with him by the respondent/accused.
He has stated that down side to the market, he was seeing 5-6
other persons, according to the evidence of CW-1, both his sons
had come from house, while CW-2 in his statement has deposed
that about 06:28 PM, when he called his father, he was very
scared and stated that respondent-accused and his companions
were going to beat him. The appellant, who has examined as
CW1, nowhere stated in his statement that CW-2 called him and
he informed him that respondent-accused and his companions
were going to kill him. CW-3-Santosh Singh Bisht in his cross-
examination, who is another son of appellant, has stated that he
did not see the respondent-accused committing maarpeet or
abusing his father.
9. In view of these evidences, the Court reached to the
conclusion that gross contradiction was reflected in their
evidences and hence, it would not be justified to rely to believe
on the testimony of CW-2 and CW-3, because both these
witnesses are the interested witnesses. Accept these two
witnesses, the appellant did not prove any such witness, who was
present on the spot. Moreover, the documentary evidences
produced on behalf of appellant i.e. Paper No.43A/4 to 43A/42
were the photocopies, which according to the Section 62 of the
Indian Evidence Act, is not a primary evidence and in view of the
Section 63 r/w Section 65 of the aforesaid Act, the same is not
even the secondary evidence and thus, those evidences could not
be admissible in evidence.
2025:UHC:2059
10. In such view of the matter, the learned trial court
reached to conclusion that the appellant failed to prove its case
against respondent beyond all reasonable doubt. I am in full
agreement with the finding recorded by learned trial court. There
is no ground available to interfere with the well reasoned
judgment. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused. The special
leave to appeal is thus rejected.
11. As a result, the Criminal appeal No.231 of 2017
preferred by the appellant-complainant is also dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
21.03.2025
PN
