STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. ASHOK SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Uttar Pradesh, now State of Uttarakhand, has filed the abovementioned appeal bearing no. 82 of 2001 and complainant Het Ram has filed revision bearing no. 359 of 2001 challenging the judgment dated 06.11.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, acquitting the respondents accused Ashok Saxena and Yash Pal Singh of the charges punishable under section 302 Indian Penal Code and under section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC framed against them respectively.

(2.) The prosecution story as unfolded in the First Information Report, which was recorded on the statement of PW1 Het Ram vide statement exhibit Ka-1 is that Het Ram (complainant) and the accused Yash Pal Singh are next door neighbours. House of accused Ashok Saxena is in the Transmission Colony and there is only a road between this colony and Hydel Colony where complainant was residing. Joginder Singh, son of the complainant, had been going to Kichcha for learning typing and Surendra Singh, son of Yash Pal Singh was also going to learn typing at the same place. Two days prior to the occurrence, Surendra Singh and Joginder Singh (PW2) had some altercations. Joginder Singh disclosed this fact at home, therefore, Maan Singh, nephew of complainant Het Ram, made complaint to this effect to accused Yash Pal Singh. On this account, in the evening Surendra Singh gave beatings to Joginder Singh in the colony. Accordingly, Het Ram made a complaint to his senior officers in this regard. On 25.06.1992 Maan Singh accompanied Joginder Singh to the typing shop. On the way they met accused Ashok Saxena and Yash Pal Singh, who were coming on scooter. They exhorted that since complaints were made everyday against them, therefore, they would be taught a lesson on that day. However, Maan Singh as well as Joginder Singh escaped from the spot and reached home. They disclosed the entire matter to deceased Yashoda Devi, the complainant's wife. Meanwhile, Ashok Saxena and Yash Pal Singh also came to their house and while standing outside they started hurling abuses. In the meantime, Het Ram also came back home after his duties. He was accompanied by Chandra Shekhar, resident of village Kishanpura. He asked both of the accused not to hurl abuses. But both the accused came in an angry mood. Accused Ashok Saxena was carrying a knife while Yash Pal Singh was carrying a hockey. Both of them ran after Het Ram who went inside his house. Both the accused chased and entered the house of Het Ram. At that time, there was no electricity but candles were emitting light in the house of Het Ram. When Yashoda Devi, wife of Het Ram tried to intervene, accused Yash Pal Singh caught hold the hands of Yashoda Devi and Ashok Saxena gave one stab injury in the stomach of Yashoda Devi, who fell down, after receiving injury. The complainant tried to catch hold of both the accused but they ran away.

(3.) This occurrence took place at 07.45 p.m. The complainant removed his wife to the hospital in a rickshaw. The medical officer of Primary Health Centre, Kichcha informed about the incident to Incharge, Police Station Kotwali vide exhibit Ka-14 at 08.20 p.m. which was received in the police station at 08.40 p.m. A report in this regard was entered in GD No. 46 (exhibit Ka-13) that wife of Het Ram, who had received one stab injury has been admitted in the Hospital. Yashoda Devi was declared dead by the doctors in the hospital. Thereafter, Het Ram went to the police station and submitted a written report exhibit Ka-1 on the basis of which chick First Information Report exhibit Ka-11 was recorded at 09.40 p.m. The investigation was handed over to PW3 Sub Inspector Surendra Singh. He reached the hospital after receiving exhibit Ka 14. He conducted the inquest report, which is exhibit Ka 2 along with other papers exhibit Ka 3 to Ka 8. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and inspected the spot on 26.06.1992 and prepared scaled site plan (exhibit Ka 9) and arrested the accused. Dead body was handed over to doctor.