Uttarakhand High Court
3 March vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 3 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:1471
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1747 of 2022
03 March, 2025
Satpal Singh --Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pankaj Semwal, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.
Deep Chandra Joshi, learned counsel for applicant.
Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for private
respondents.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of the present C482 application,
applicant has challenged the order dated 24.02.2020
passed by learned trial court in Criminal Case
No.1211 of 2019 State Vs. Mahesh and Others,
whereby, the plea of applicant framing additional
charge under Section 307 IPC against the accused
persons was rejected as well as the order dated
02.08.2022 passed by the learned Revisional court in
Criminal Revision No.56 of 2020 Satpal Vs. State and
Others, whereby, the revision filed by the applicant
against the order dated 24.02.2020 was rejected and
further to direct the trial court to frame additional
charge under Section 307 IPC against the accused
persons and commenced the trial under Section 307
IPC too.
2. The facts in the nutshell are that an
application was moved by the applicant before the
Court of First Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District
Udham Singh Nagar with the averments that on
1
2025:UHC:1471
24.06.2018, he had given a report at Police Station
Kicchha against the accused persons/respondent
Nos.2 to 9, according to which, the case was
registered against the accused persons. It was
alleged by the applicant in the application that the
Investigating Officer, having connived with the
accused persons, removed the name of co-accused
Madan, Ashok and Ajay from the charge-sheet and
at the same time, submitted the charge-sheet
against the accused persons only in minor sections.
It was alleged by him that he along with his brother
has sustained severe injuries in the incident. His
brother had 14 stitches on his head. The
Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of
Medical Officer, who, conducted the medical
examination on the person of injured, in which the
injuries on the person of Omveer (his brother) was
found to be serious in nature. However, Investigating
Officer, ignoring the statement of the Medical Officer,
did not submit the charge-sheet against the accused
persons for the offences punishable under Section
307 of IPC and thus, conspired with the accused
persons. The brother of the applicant-informant
remained hospitalized for 09 days. Hence, it was
prayed that the offence under Section 307 IPC may
be added against the accused persons.
3. The learned trial court by its detailed
judgment dated 24.02.2020 has rejected the
aforesaid application. Challenging the said order
dated 24.06.2020, the applicant has preferred a
Criminal Revision No.56 of 2020 Satpal Vs. State and
2
2025:UHC:1471
Others, which was also rejected by learned
Revisional Court vide its order dated 02.08.2022.
Challenging the aforesaid orders dated 24.02.2020
and 02.08.2022, applicant has knocked the door of
this Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
at length and carefully gone through the entire
documents available in the file of the Court.
5. It needs to be mentioned at this stage that
in the FIR lodged by the applicant, charge-sheet was
submitted by the Investigating Officer in the Court
under Sections 452, 323, 324, 325, 504 and 506
IPC. The Court below has recorded the finding of the
fact that the applicant-informant nowhere stated in
his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the
accused persons assaulted him with the intention to
kill. Moreover, in the medical of the injured-Omveer,
it was not stated that the injured could also
succumbed to his injuries or those injuries were
dangerous to life. In the FIR, it was stated that the
injuries were caused with the sharp edged weapon,
but, in the medical report so prepared, there is no
injury caused by any sharp edged weapon. Even, the
Medical Officer has stated that all the injuries were
caused by a blunt object.
6. The learned trial court taking recourse to
various authorities of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that there was no basis to frame the charge
under Section 307 IPC against the accused persons.
A finding of fact was also recorded that the
3
2025:UHC:1471
informant-applicant himself stated that the accused
persons, considering the injured as dead, left the
place. It was reiterated that if the accused persons
had the intention to kill while committing the crime,
then they would have been given any threat to kill
nor would they leave the injured in semi-dead
condition, rather the accused persons could easily
cause and ensure the death. In order to commit an
offence under Section 307 IPC, commission of an act
with intention to kill is a sine qua none. However,
from the averments of the application, this fact could
not be borne out. Accordingly, the learned trial court
rejected the application moved by the applicant-
informant.
7. Having gone through the findings recorded
by the learned trial court and on consideration of the
submissions raised before the Court, I am of the
opinion that there is no illegality or perversity in the
impugned orders.
8. In view of the above, the present C482
application fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
03.03.2025
PN
4
