Uttarakhand High Court
Ashok Ram vs State Of Uttarakhand on 3 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:2491
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No.267 of 2007
Ashok Ram --Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:
Mr. P.S. Dhami, learned counsel appeared through V.C. and
Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, learned counsel for appellant.
Mr. K.S. Bohra, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr.
J.P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant
under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) against
the judgment and order dated 04.07.2007 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial
No.54 of 2005 State Vs. Ashok Ram, whereby, the
appellant was convicted and sentenced for Seven Years’
rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- with
default stipulation of one and half years additional
imprisonment under Section 308 IPC and two years’
rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, with
default stipulation of Six months’ additional
imprisonment under Section 506 IPC. Both the sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on
25.04.2005 at around 04:00 PM, when the cattle of
accused person-appellant trespassed the land of the
complainant’s brother, his brother asked appellant not to
let his cattle trespass as it was damaging his crops. On
hearing this, the accused person-appellant got furious
and seriously injured the complainant’s brother with
1
2025:UHC:2491
Badiyad (a sharp edged heavy cutting weapon); on
hearing the sound of scuffle, the complainant-Naresh
Ram, who was working in a nearby field, rushed to the
spot, where, he found his brother lying on the ground
after having suffered severe injuries. On medical
examination, several serious injuries including fracture
in one leg and one hand were found. Thereafter, the
complainant-Naresh Ram, lodged an FIR in the police
station against the accused person-appellant bearing FIR
No.01 of 2005, under Sections 326, 308, 427, 504 and
506 IPC.
4. On the basis of above complaint, a chick FIR
was registered and investigation was started and after
inspecting the alleged spot of incident, medical report,
examining the witnesses and arresting the accused
person-appellant, a charge-sheet under Sections 326,
308, 427, 504 and 506 IPC was filed in the Court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, who finding it fit to be tried
by Court of Sessions committed it. Learned Sessions
Judge after going through records and hearing both the
parties, framed charges under Sections 308 and 506 IPC,
which were read over and explained to the accused
person-appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.
5. To prove its case, the prosecution has
examined five witnesses i.e. PW-1 Kishan Prasad
(injured), PW-2 Dr. J.S. Nabiyal, PW-3 Dr. Vipin Chandra
Tripathi, PW-4 Naresh Ram (complainant) and PW-5
Prem Singh Dhami and substantiate the charges against
the appellant.
6. PW-3 Dr. J.S. Nabiyal, who examined the
injured PW-1 Kishan Prasad, found that the injured was
conscious, but his physical condition was not good; his
2
2025:UHC:2491
blood pressure was 100/70 m.m., h.g. and found the
following injuries on the person of injured, as explained
by him in his evidence before the learned trial court:
“1. There was a deep bruise on the right side of the head in the
forehead, which was 2.5 cm X 1 cm in size. It was reddish
brown in colour and was slightly swollen and painful.
2. There were two lacerated wounds on the back and outside of
the left upper arm, size 0.5 Cm X 0.5 cm. The colour was
reddish brown. The margins were irregular. Escape formation
was formed. Along with this wound, there was a contusion on
the same side, it was swollen and painful. There was a
groaning sound in the contusion. Irregularity was felt. The size
of the contusion was 4 cm X 4 cm. It was in the middle part of
the upper arm.
3. Left elbow with a scratched contusion, its size was 2.5 cm X
0.5 cm. It was swollen and bruised. The colour was red and
brownish.
4. Lacerated wound in right upper arm, size 1 cm X 0.5 cm,
margin irregular, colour red brownish.
5. Pain, lacerated wound in elbow with contusion, size 1 cm X
0.5 cm colour red brownish, margin was irregular.
6. There was a scratched contusion on the front part of right arm,
size 3.5 cm X 1 cm colour red brownish.
7. There was a bruise on the lower part of the right thigh and
right knee. Size 3 cm X 0.5 cm. 2. Size 3.5 cm X 0.5 cm, it was
brown and reddish.
8. There was a lacerated wound in right knee, size 5 cm X 0.5
cm, colour brown red, margin was irregular, Escape formation
was found.
9. Lacerated wound in lower part of right leg measuring 2.5 cm X
0.5 cm, margin irregular, colour red brownish, Escape
formation was found.
10. There was a contusion in the bone on the outside of the right
leg with swelling and pain. Swelling size 3.5 cm X 2.5 cm.
11. There was a contusion in left leg with swelling and pain, size
5 cm X 3 cm.
12. In the middle part of left leg, there was a small lacerated and
contusion 1 cm X 0.5 cm. Margin irregular, colour red
brownish with swelling and pain. The crackling and
irregularity of the bones persisted in this area.
13. Left knee had two-three scratches, measuring 3 cm X 0.5 cm.
2. 3.5 cm X 0.5 cm. Colour red brownish.
14. Small lacerated wound on the lower part of left thigh, size 0.5
cm X 0.7 cm, margin irregular, Escape formation of red brown
colour was formed.”
7. During trial, PW-1, who was the injured, on oath
deposed that when he objected the trespassing of the
appellant’s cattle on his field, the appellant got furious
and started beating him with blunt side of Badiyad,
which has caused serious injuries to his body. He also
explained that non-availability of palanquin was the
3
2025:UHC:2491
cause of delay in getting admitted to the hospital. He
categorically stated in his evidence that he was attacked
with blunt side of the Badiyad (mYVs cfM;kM ls ekjk).
8. PW-2- Dr. J.S. Nabiyal, who was the doctor
examining the injured on oath deposed that he was
working in emergency department of Government
Hospital Pithoragarh on that day; the injured person was
brought to the hospital by his younger brother. He
testified that although the injured has not lost
consciousness, but he was in a bad state having multiple
injuries all over his body. He further deposed that if the
injured wasn’t brought to the hospital within time, the
injuries could have resulted into his death. He exhibited
and proved the medical report as Ext.Ka-1 and found as
many as 14 injuries on the person of the injured PW-1
Kishan Prasad.
9. PW-3 Dr. Vipin Chandra Tripathi, who was the
Radiologist, on oath deposed that he had prepared the X-
ray reports and testified the fracture in limbs of the
injured.
10. PW-4-Naresh Ram, who was complainant,
happens to be the real brother of injured/victim on oath
deposed that he is the eye witness of the present case
and whole incident occurred in his presence. He further
stated that at the time of incident, he was working in a
nearby field; on hearing hue and cry of his brother, he
rushed to the spot; on reaching there, he found his
brother lying in the ground who had suffered grievous
injuries. He thereafter rushed him to the hospital. He
further submitted on oath that he gave report of the
incident to Patti Patwari (Revenue Police Inspector) and
proved the FIR as Ext.Ka-3. On cross-examination, his
evidence remained unimpeached.
4
2025:UHC:2491
11. After prosecution evidences, the statement of
appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in
which, he stated that he was innocent and was falsely
implicated due to enmity. No defence witness was
produced.
12. After conclusion of the trial, the appellant was
convicted as stated Para-2 of this judgment.
13. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for
the appellant that there is delay in lodging the FIR, which
raises serious doubts over entire prosecution story. He
also submitted that despite variations in evidences of
witnesses, the learned Trial Court has convicted the
appellant. He further submitted that weapon of assault
was not recovered by the police.
14. It is also argued by learned counsel for the
appellant that essential conditions of culpability under
Sections 308 and 506 IPC weren’t established by the
prosecution. Therefore, the learned trial court committed
error in convicting the appellant.
15. Per contra, learned State Counsel supported
the case of the prosecution and submits that the injuries
was serious and was life threatening and the Doctor, who
has examined the injured, has also deposed in its
statement that if the injured wasn’t brought to the
hospital within time, the injuries could have resulted into
his death. Since, he was attacked with blunt side of the
Badiyad, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the
appellant under Section 308 IPC.
16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and having gone through the material available on
record, this Court is of the opinion that learned trial
court has meticulously dealt with all the evidences
5
2025:UHC:2491
available at the trial. The judgment rendered by learned
trial court duly explains the presence of witnesses on the
alleged spot of incident, it also deals with allegation of
contradiction in statements of witnesses and also
appreciates the fact of delay in lodging the FIR. So far as
non-recovery of the weapon of assault is concerned, the
benefit of such lacuna in the investigation cannot be
given to the appellant, as the ocular evidence on record is
unimpeachable.
17. In this view of the matter, this Court opines
that in a case in which the victim was suffered 14
injuries, few of which are even life threatening, it will not
be apt to interfere with a well reasoned judgment and
order passed by learned trial court, as it may lead to
erosion of confidence of public in judicial system.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. The
judgment and order dated 04.07.2007 passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No.54 of
2005 State Vs. Ashok Ram, whereby, the appellant was
convicted and sentenced as stated in Para 2 above, is
hereby affirmed.
18. Let a copy of this judgment, along with the
TCR, be transmitted to the Court concerned for
information/compliance.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
03.04.2025
PN/-
PREETI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432
f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
NEGI
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F92
29D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.04.08 14:12:09 +05’30’
6
[ad_1]
Source link