Uttarakhand High Court
Randhir And Others –Appellants vs State Of Uttarakhand on 15 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA
Second Bail Application (IA No.5 of 2024)
IN
Criminal Appeal No.329 of 2023
15th May, 2025
Randhir and Others --Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Nipush
Mola Joshi, Ms. Chetna Latwal and Mr. Rajat Kholia, learned
counsels for the appellants.
Mr. S. S. Chauhan, learned, learned Deputy Advocate General with
Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
G. NARENDAR, C.J.
ORDER
We have heard Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned
Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.S. Chauhan,
learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
2. The case of the prosecution, as narrated by
1
the complainant/informant in the complaint, who is said
to have died during trial, is that, as per the complaint,
on 22.02.2010 at about 7:00 am, while his deceased
uncle Prithvi Singh was passing by his shop, he was
ambushed by Chaman Lal, Randhir, Sukhbir (sons of
Kundan), Basant Kumar, Bhushan Lal (sons of Chaman
Lal), and Jaiveer, Trilok, Sunny (sons of Sukhbir), and
Janni @ Arjun (son of Randhir), all residents of the
village; that, they were already waiting for the arrival of
the deceased and were armed with iron rods, lathis,
sticks and clubs in their hands. They attacked his uncle
with a common intention, inflicting injuries upon his
head and body. Upon hearing his cries for help, Kishan
(son of Sawala), Pawan Kumar (son of Kishan Lal), Arti
Devi (wife of Kishan Lal), Mange Ram (son of Prithvi
Singh), and Monu (son of Kishan Lal) rushed to the spot
to save him, but the accused persons had attacked him
with iron rods, sticks and clubs with the intent to kill.
Prithvi (son of Sawla) succumbed to his injuries on the
way to the hospital, while the others were seriously
injured and currently admitted to the hospital and he
has named the eyewitnesses Bijender, Sonu Kumar,
Pawan and other villagers, who saw the entire incident
and helped to rescue and that the accused, before
fleeing from the spot, threatened to kill all of them.
3. The next statement that is of some relevance
is that of P.W.-1 Mange Ram (son of deceased Prithvi
Singh), who has deposed that, on the relevant day, he
was at home and heard a commotion from the
intersection and, upon hearing the noise, he along with
Kishan, Pawan, Monu and Arti went to intersection,
where they saw Chaman Lal, Basant Bhushan, Sukhbir,
2
Jaiveer, Trilok, Sunny, Randhir, and Arjun physically
assaulting his father; that, Jaiveer and Basant were
hitting his father with iron rods; that, Chaman was
carrying a double-barrel gun, while the others were
armed with sticks and clubs; that, when they tried to
intervene, they assaulted them as well; that, the
individuals were attacking his father with the intent to
kill his father. Upon their cries for help, several
villagers, including Vijender and Sonu, arrived and
intervened and, apart from his father, Kishan and Arti
also sustained injuries; that, they took Kishan and his
deceased father to the Government Hospital, Haridwar
and the Doctor there recommended to take his father to
Jolly Grant Hospital for higher treatment, but they took
him to Bengali Hospital, Kankhal, Haridwar, but en-
route, his father succumbed to his injuries. In the
cross-examination, the version takes a U-turn. He
admits that there is no property dispute. He admits that
they are one family and they are living separately i.e.
the accused and the complainant; that, there is no prior
litigation, but there was some dispute and that the
dispute regarding a daala (boundary) which had
happened about four to five years prior to the incident
and, that apart, there was no further conflicts or issues.
He admits that the incident happened suddenly. He
admits that the case has been registered by the
accused against the complainants. He admits that a
quashing petition was filed before this Court to quash
the case registered by the accused, which was
dismissed. He admits that though charges were framed,
they did not apply nor seek bail in the cross case; that,
the cross case involves Bishan, Vishan, Kishan, Sonu
etc. and he also admits that the accused, including
3
Jaiveer, Trilok and Randhir, underwent medical
examination. He admits that he does not know as to
what led to the altercation in the present incident. He
also admits that he still does not know the cause of the
dispute. He admits that he reached the scene upon
hearing the commotion. He admits that fight was
already ongoing when he arrived there. He admits that
he did not witness as to why the fight commenced. He
states that Basant and Jaiveer assaulted his father and
Basant attacked him and Jaiveer attacked his father. He
admits that he was never hospitalized for his alleged
head injuries and that he got it treated by a local
Doctor. He admits that none of the people, who came to
their rescue, were assaulted. He would state that he
was unconscious for about 30 seconds and that when
he regained consciousness, the fight had ended and he
does not know, who hit whom. He admits that his
house is quite a distance from the place of occurrence
and that the site of the crime is not visible from his
house. He names the persons, whose houses are
opposite to the crime scene i.e. house of Dilip Rana,
Sherkali’s house, Jaypal’s house and Chaman’s house.
He admits that no neighbors came out despite the
commotion and the noise. He states that he saw blood
on the road and Pawan pointed it out to the police next
day. He denies the suggestions that Bishan, Kishan and
others, who entered in the house of the accused and
assaulted Jayveer and others with sticks and clubs. He
admits that the word ‘scuffle’ (hathapai) has been
wrongly inserted in the statement.
4. From the reading of the admission, it is
apparent that PW1 was not an eyewitness and his
4
statement rings hollow, in view of the fact that, despite
having suffered a head injury by an iron rod, there was
no necessity for him to take any treatment or
hospitalization.
5. PW-5 is one Sonu Kumar (son of Bishan Lal).
It is his case that he was taking a bath at his house and
heard loud noise and, when he looked outside, he saw
Jaiveer, Basant, Bhushan, Trilok, Sunny, Chaman Lal,
Sukhbir, Randhir and Janni @ Arjun assaulting his uncle
Prithvi Singh, Kishan Lal, Pawan, Monu, Mangeram and
Arti Devi. Jaiveer and Basant were holding iron rod,
Chaman was holding a tabal (sharp-edged weapon) and
the rest were armed with sticks and clubs; that, he
along with Vijender and other residents rushed to the
spot and attempted to intervene, but they were
threatened. Thereafter, the accused fled away
threatening to kill all of them; that, they took the
injured persons to G.D. Hospital, where Kishan Lal and
Prithvi Singh were declared in critical condition and
referred to Jolly Grant Hospital, however, on way back,
at Bengali Hospital, Prithvi Singh was declared dead.
6. We have perused the list of documents and
the exhibits. It is pertinent to note that there is no
Death Certificate, declaring the said Prithvi Singh as
dead nor is there any evidence as to when the said
Prithvi Singh died, yet we find a Post Mortem Report of
the said Prithvi Singh. There is one medical report
Exhibit P-27, wherein it is stated that the deceased was
examined; that, apart we find that a Death Certificate
has been introduced and the date of issue is
29.03.2016 and when the date of incident is alleged as
22.02.2010. It is probably a first case of this kind,
5
where a body has been subjected to post mortem even
before medically declared as dead. What is even more
puzzling is that though the complainant-Pawan Kumar
and Arti Devi (P.W.-3) are alleged to have been
examined at about 10:00 AM, the reason for delaying
medical attention to the deceased is not forthcoming.
That apart the Post Mortem Report, which is said to
have been carried out on 22.03.2010, also does not
record the receipt of certificate issued by a medical
Doctor, certifying the time and date of death. The ante
mortem injuries recorded in the Post Mortem Report are
6-stitch wound on the topmost part to the head, 2-
stitch wound on the back of the head. It is recorded
that the skull bones on the top and the back were
fractured. The parietal and temporal bones were
fractured in a square shape. A large blood clot (8cm x 1
cm) was observed between the brain membrane and
the skull. The estimated time of death is about the day
before the post mortem. The time of post mortem is
recorded as 11:45 PM i.e. between 2/3rd of a day
would imply next day i.e. almost anywhere between 18
to 20 hours after the incident. Though, it is the
common fact recited by the witnesses that the
deceased was attacked, yet it is surprising that no
effort was made to save his life.
7. The fact remains that the material on record
would demonstrate that the deceased had a six stitch
wound on the topmost part of the head and two stitch
wound on the back of the head. There is no evidence of
the doctor, who has attended or rendered medical aid
or who performed the process on the deceased which,
by itself, is a serious lacuna and would strike at the
6
very root of the prosecution theory. That apart, though
the names of ten accused are named by the so-called
eyewitnesses, yet we find that only six accused have
been found culpable of committing the offence by the
Investigating Authority.
8. There is no explanation as to why the other
few persons, accused of having committed the assault,
have been let-off and not sent up for trial. There is also
no explanation by the prosecution with regard to the
serious injuries that have been suffered by the accused.
Serious infirmities and inherent contradictions in the
statements of the prosecution witnesses apart, a critical
aspect of the case is the non-explanation of the injuries
suffered by the accused. The injuries suffered by the
accused have been produced and marked as Exhibit A-
1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 & A-6 in Sessions Trial No.14 of
2014.
9. The medical record in respect of A-1 one
Randheer (son of Kundan) is as under:-
“Randheer aged about 48 yrs S/o Shri Kundan R/o
Dhanpur P/o -Pathri HaridwarB/B> P.H.D Krishan Pal dated 22/02/010 at 12:25
PM.
MI> A black mole right side front of mole 1 cmc
middle bond (B) landeINJURIES >
1. Contusion abraded 2cm x 1.5 Cm on left side
forehead just above outerend of presented. left
eyebrow oosing of blood
2. Contused swalling 7x 5 Cm on back of hand
including little Fingure 3 Cm below wrist Joint. KUO
Advice X ray reddish in Colour.
3. Complain of Pain right Side back Of Chest.
Opinion> All injury caused by hard blunt object
Injury No.2 Kuo advise X-ray other injury are single7
in nature duration fresh.”
10. A bare reading would show that the injuries 1
and 2 are grievous injuries and suffered on the
forehead and the wrist joint of the hand and the third
one is complaint of pain in the back of the chest and
the nature of the injuries is recorded as fresh and the
doctor, who has issued the Wound Certificate, is none
other than P.W.-7. It is recorded by the doctor that the
injuries are caused by a hard blunt object.
11. The next Medical Certificate is that of Jaibeer
(accused no.5). The injuries recorded by the doctor so
far as A-5 is concerned, is as under:-
“Jaibeer aged about 25 yrs 5/o Shri Sukhveer R/o
Dhanpur P/o -Pathri HaridwarB/B P.R.D Krishan Pal dated 22/02/010 at 12:35 PM.
MI> Black mole on right forearm 13 cm above wrist
jointINJURIES >
1. LW 3 X 0.5 cm X bonedeep on right side of head 6.5
cmabove middle of right eyebrow. Fresh bleeding present
KUO Advise X-Ray
2. LW 2cm X 0.5 Cm X bone deep on right side back of
head 11.5Cm behind right ear fresh bleeding present
KUO.
3. Contusion 6X2 cm on right forearm 6.0 cm above
wrist joint redish in colour.
Opinion> All injuries caused by hard blunt object
injury No. 1&2 KUO Advice x-ray. Injury No.3 Simple
in nature duration freshly.
Again, the weapon used to cause the injury is
recorded as a hard blunt object and the nature of injury
as fresh and duration & nature is recorded as fresh.
8
12. The said doctor has also examined Smt. Rani
(wife of Kundan), aged 75 years, who has also suffered
contused swelling 10 x 8 cms on the right top of the
shoulder and it is again recorded as caused by hard and
blunt object and duration as fresh. The said Senior
Citizen, though an injured, has not been arrayed as an
accused.
13. The next Medical Certificate is in respect of A-
6. The injuries recorded are as under:-
“Trilok aged about 18 yrs S/o Shri Sukhveer R/o Vill &
P.O Dhanpur P/o-Pathri HaridwarB/B P.R.D Krishan Pal on dated 22/02/010 at 01:00
PM.
MI > A Black mole right side face below right ear.
Injuries >
1. Contusion 5X2 Cm on right side back of chest 4 Cm
below lowerend of right scapula redish in colour
duration fresh.
2. Contusion 4X1.5 cm on left side back of chest just
below lowerend of left scapula redish in colour.
Injuries opinion > All injuries caused by hard blunt
object. Simple in nature duration freshIt is again recorded by the very same doctor
that the same are caused by hard and blunt object and
the injuries that are caused are fresh.
14. The next Medical Certificate is in respect of A-
3 Sri Basant and the injuries suffered are grievous
injuries and, in the opinion of doctor, it is recorded as
having been caused by a hard blunt object and the
nature as fresh.
15. The next is the Medical Certificate in respect of
9
one Mirta, which records a lacerated wound measuring
3.5 cms X 0.3 cms muscle deep on the left eyebrow and
fresh bleeding was present.
16. The injuries suffered by the accused and
detailed as above has neither been explained by the
prosecution, nor has it been appreciated by the trial
Court.
17. The trial Court erred in presuming that the
congregation of the accused was with the common
objective. When it has been elicited in the cross-
examination of the PW-1 that there were no dispute
between the families and that the only incident was
about four to five years ago, despite such an admission
by P.W.-1, the Court, by convoluted reasoning, has
presumed a common objective. The Court has acted like
a horse with blinders. Not a single admission elicited in
the cross-examination of P.W.-1 and P.W.-5 (the alleged
eye-witnesses) has been appreciated. Both the
witnesses have categorically admitted that there was no
dispute persisting as on the day. In the absence of a
motive, we fail to understand as to how the Court
concluded that the accused had a common objective
and, that too, contrary to the admissions of the
prosecution witnesses. In our opinion, the concerned
trial Judge appears to lack expertise in the matter of
appreciation of evidence. That apart, it is no more res
integra that the failure to explain the injuries suffered by
the accused have a deleterious effect on the case of the
prosecution.
18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi
Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1976)
4 SCC 394, has in para no.12 observed and held as10
under:-
12. P.W. 8 Dr. S. P. Jaiswal who had examined
Brahmdeo deceased and had conducted the
postmortem of the deceased had also examined the
accused Dasrath Singh, whom he identified in the
Court, on April 22, 1966 and found the following
injuries on his person:
1. Bruise 3″ x 1/2″ on the dorsal part of the right
forearm about in the middle and there was
compound fracture of the fibula bone about in the
middle.
2. Incised wound 1″ x 2 mm x skin subcutaneous
deep on the lateral part of the left upper arm, near
the shoulder joint.
3. Punctured wound 1/2″ x 2 mm, x 4 mm on the
lateral side of the left thigh about 5 inches below
the hip joint.
According to the Doctor injury 1 was grievous in
nature as it resulted in compound fracture of the
fibula bone. The other two injuries were also serious
injuries which had been inflicted by a sharp-cutting
weapon. Having regard to the circumstances of the
case there can be no doubt that Dasrath Singh must
have received these injuries in the course of the
assault, because it has not been suggested or
contended that the injuries could be self-inflicted nor
it is believable. In these circumstances, therefore, it
was the bounden duty of the prosecution to give a
reasonable explanation for the injuries sustained by
the accused Dasrath Singh in the course of the
occurrence. Not only the prosecution has given no
explanation, but some of the witnesses have made a
clear statement that they did not see any injuries on
the person of the accused. Indeed if the eye-
witnesses could have given such graphic details
regarding the assault on the two deceased and
Dasain Singh and yet they deliberately suppressed
the injuries on the person of the accused, this is a
most important circumstance to discredit the entire
prosecution case. It is well settled that fouler the
crime, higher the proof, and hence in a murder case
where one of the accused is proved to have sustained
injuries in the course of the same occurrence, the
non-explanation of such injuries by the prosecution is
a manifest defect in the prosecution case and shows
11
that the origin and genesis of the occurrence had
been deliberately suppressed which leads to the
irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has not
come out with a true version of the occurrence. This
matter was argued before the High Court and we are
constrained to observe that the learned Judges
without appreciating the ratio of this Court in Mohar
Rai v. State of Bihar tried to brush it aside on most
untenable grounds. The question whether the
Investigating Officer was informed about the injuries
is wholly irrelevant to the issue, particularly when the
very Doctor who examined one of the deceased and
the prosecution witnesses is the person who
examined the appellant Dasrath Singh also. In the
case referred to above, this Court clearly observed as
follows:
The trial Court as well as the High Court wholly
ignored the significance of the injuries found on the
appellants. Mohar Rai had sustained as many as 13
injuries and Bharath Rai 14. We get it from the
evidence of P.W. 15 that he noticed injuries on the
person of Mohar Rai when he was produced before
him immediately after the occurrence. Therefore the
version of the appellants that they sustained injuries
at the time of the occurrence is highly pro-babilised.
Under these circumstances the prosecution had a
duty to explain those injuries…. In our judgment
the failure of the prosecution to offer any
explanation in that regard shows that evidence of
the prosecution witnesses relating to the incident is
not true or at any rate not wholly true. Further
those injuries probabilise the plea taken by the
appellants.
This Court clearly pointed out that where the
prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the
accused, two results follow: (1) that the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue;
and (2) that the injuries probabilise the plea
taken by the appellants. The High Court in the
present case has not correctly applied the
principles laid down by this Court in the
decision referred to above. In some of the recent
cases, the same principle was laid down. In Puran
Singh v. The State of Punjab, which was also a
murder case, this Court, while following an earlier
case, observed as follows:
In State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima Criminal one of us
(Untwalia, J.) speaking for the Court, observed as12
follows:
In a situation like this when the prosecution
fails to explain the injuries on the person of an
accused, depending on the facts of each case,
any of the three results may follow:
(1) That the accused had inflicted the injuries
on the members of the prosecution party in
exercise of the right of self-defence.
(2) It makes the prosecution version of the
occurrence doubtful and the charge against
the accused cannot be held to have been
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(3) It does not affect the prosecution case at
all.
The facts of the present case clearly fall within the
four corners of either of the first two principles laid
down by this judgment. In the instant case, either the
accused were fully justified in causing the death of
the deceased and were protected by the right of
private defence or that if the prosecution does not
explain the injuries on the person of the deceased the
entire prosecution case is doubtful and the genesis of
the occurrence is shrouded in deep mystery, which is
sufficient to demolish the entire prosecution case.
It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-
explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused
at about the time of the occurrence or in the course
of altercation is a very important circumstance from
which the Court can draw the following inferences:
(1) That the prosecution has sup- pressed the
genesis and the origin of the occurrence and
has thus not presented the true version;
(2) that the witnesses who have denied the
presence of the injuries on the person of the
accused are lying on a most material point and
therefore their evidence is unreliable;
(3) that in case there is a defence version
which explains the injuries on the person of
the accused it is rendered probable so as to
throw doubt on the prosecution case.
The omission on the part of the prosecution to
13
explain the injuries on the person of the
accused assumes much greater importance
where the evidence consists of interested or
inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a
version which competes in probability with that
of the prosedition one. In the instant case,
when it is held, as it must be, that the appellant
Dasrath Singh received serious injuries which
have not been explained by the prosecution,
then it will be difficult for the Court to rely on
the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and 6, more
particularly, when some of these witnesses
have lied by stating that they did not see any
injuries on the person of the accused. Thus
neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court
appears to have given due consideration to this
important lacuna or infirmity appearing in the
prosecution case. We must hasten to add that
as held by this Court in State of Gujarat v. Bai
Fatima there may be cases where the non-
explanation of the injuries by the prosecution
may not affect the prosecution case. This
principle would obviously apply to cases where
the injuries sustained by the accused are minor
and superficial or where the evidence is so clear
and cogent, so independent and disinterested,
so probable, consistent and credit-worthy, that
it far outweighs the effect of the omission on
the part of the prosecution to explain the
injuries. The present, however, is certainly not
such a case, and the High Court was, therefore,
in error in brushing aside this serious infirmity
in the prosecution case on unconvincing
premises.
19. The injuries suffered are bone deep,
fractures, bleedings injuries on the eyebrows, forehead
which, in the opinion of this Court, can, by no stretch of
imagination, be categorized as minor or superficial, as
the medical opinion of the examining Doctor is that
they have been caused by a hard and blunt object,
implying thereby, they were caused by an external
force and by an object used as a weapon.
20. The law in this regard has been reiterated by
14
the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the ruling
reported in (2023) 10 SCC 470, Nand Lal and Others
Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court, after referring to ten of its own rulings, including
the Lakshmi Singh‘s case (Supra), has been pleased to
observe and held in para nos. 25 to 28 as under:-
“25. We will first consider the issue with regard to
non- explanation of injuries sustained by Accused 11
Naresh Kumar. In Lakshmi Singh and Others v. State
of Bihar, which case also arose out of a conviction
under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC,
this Court had an occasion to consider the issue of
non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused.
This Court, after referring to the earlier judgments
on the issue, observed thus:
“12. …….It seems to us that in a murder
case, the non-explanation of the injuries
sustained by the accused at about the time
of the occurrence or in the course of
altercation is a very important circumstance
from which the court can draw the following
inferences:
(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the
genesis and the origin of the occurrence and
has thus not presented the true version;
(2) that the witnesses who have denied the
presence of the injuries on the person of the
accused are lying on a most material point
and therefore their evidence is unreliable;
(3) that in case there is a defence version
which explains the injuries on the person of
the accused it is rendered probable so as to
throw doubt on the prosecution case.
The omission on the part of the prosecution to
explain the injuries on the person of the accused
assumes much greater importance where the
evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses
or where the defence gives a version which competes
in probability with that of the prosecution one. In the
instant case, when it is held, as it must be, that the
appellant Dasrath Singh received serious injuries
which have not been explained by the prosecution,
then it will be difficult for the court to rely on the
evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and 6, more particularly,
when some of these witnesses have lied by stating
that they did not see any injuries on the person of
the accused. Thus neither the Sessions Judge nor the
High Court appears to have given due consideration
to this important lacuna or infirmity appearing in the
prosecution case. We must hasten to add that as
held by this Court in State of Gujarat v. Bai
15
Fatima there may be cases where the non-
explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may
not affect the prosecution case. This principle would
obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained
by the accused are minor and superficial or where
the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent
and disinterested, so probable, consistent and
creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the
omission on the part of the prosecution to explain
the injuries. The present, however, is certainly not
such a case, and the High Court was, therefore, in
error in brushing aside this serious infirmity in the
prosecution case on unconvincing premises.”
26. A similar view with regard to non-explanation of
injuries has been taken by this Court in State of
Rajasthan v. Madho, State of M.P. v.
Mishrilal and Nagarathinam v. State.
27. Undisputedly, in the present case, the injuries
sustained by accused 11 Naresh Kumar cannot be
considered to be minor or superficial. The witnesses
are also interested witnesses, inasmuch as they are
close relatives of the deceased. That there was
previous enmity between the two families, on
account of election of Sarpanch, has come on record.
As observed by this Court in the case of Ramashish
Ray v. Jagdish Singh, previous enmity is a double-
edged sword. On one hand, it can provide motive
and on the other hand, the possibility of false
implication cannot be ruled out.
28. We have already seen herein above the injuries
sustained by accused 11 Naresh Kumar. Much prior
to lodging of the FIR at 3.15 a.m. on 4-11-2006 by
Khomlal, the Police had taken accused 11 Naresh
Kumar for medical examination. The memo
forwarding accused 11 Naresh Kumar for medical
examination to Medical Officer mentions that accused
11 had informed the police that at around 08.30 PM,
he was assaulted by Atmaram (PW-1). Undisputedly,
the prosecution has suppressed information with
regard to the said incident. The prosecution has also
suppressed the FIR lodged by Atmaram (PW-1). It is
thus clear that the prosecution has attempted to
suppress the real genesis of the incident. Taking into
consideration this aspect of the matter, coupled with
the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by
accused 11 Naresh Kumar, we are of the considered
view that accused 11 Naresh Kumar is entitled to
benefit of doubt.”
21. That apart from the above grounds, there is
no explanation for the delay by the prosecution in the
registration of the F.I.R.; there is no explanation for
failure of treatment of the deceased; there is no
16
medical evidence, evidencing the treatment or medical
aid given to the deceased, except for the statement of
the witnesses that he died while being taken to Bengali
Hospital in Haridwar, when it was the clear advise of the
Doctor at the Government Hospital, Haridwar that he be
taken to Jolly Grant Hospital, Dehradun, which was
hardly about 30 km to 40 kms away. There is also no
explanation on the part of the prosecution or the
prosecution witnesses, as to why the medical aid was
denied or delayed to the deceased. The evidence on
record Exhibit-P-27 would show that the deceased has
been taken to the Hospital and attended by the Doctor
at 9:40 PM i.e. almost more than 14 hours after the
alleged assault. That apart, the lack of evidence
regarding the stitches or presence of the surgical
stitches on the head of the deceased not having been
explained in a cogent manner, the trial Court, in our
prima facie opinion, erred in rendering a finding of guilt.
22. In that view of the matter and in view of the
fact that hearing of the Appeal would take few more
years, we are of the opinion that the appellants/
applicants have made out a case for grant of bail.
Accordingly, the operation of the judgment and
sentence imposed by the trial Court in Sessions Trial
No.222 of 2010 dated 09.05.2023 stands suspended.
The appellants/applicants are directed to be released on
bail forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject
to appellants furnishing a bond for a sum of ₹25,000/-
each and furnishing one surety each for a like sum to
the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate.
17
23. List in due course.
(G. NARENDAR, C.J.)
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
Dated: 15.05.2025
BS
18
[ad_1]
Source link