KISAN RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.08.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli in Sessions Trial No.8 of 2004, 'State vs. Kisan Ram', whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of RS 5,000/- and in the event of default in payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo additional imprisonment of one year.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution story as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidences on record is that, on 07.06.2003 at 9 p.m. an F.I.R., Ex-Ka2 was lodged by Bhoop Singh, PW-1, through his written information, Ex-Ka1, with the allegations that on the same day i.e. 07.06.2003 at about 6 p.m., the appellant ran towards Surendra Singh, PW-2, and started beating him with the intention to take life of Surendra Singh and tried to throw him into the river. Surendra Singh fainted on the spot. He sustained several injuries. He was rescued by the villagers. This incident was occurred in village Purna, situated in the jurisdiction of Revenue Police Station Deval, District Chamoli. According to the injured Surendra Singh, PW-2, he was going from Deval on 07.06.2003 at about 5.30-6 in the evening and when he reached near tourist bungalow, he witnessed that the appellant was beating Mohan Prasad, PW-7. He asked the appellant not to beat Mohan Prasad, on which the appellant started beating him with stones. In this incident, he received head injury. Doctor Prakash Kumar Thakur, PW-6, was posted as a Medical Officer in P.H.C., Tharali. He found 15 injuries on the body of the injured. He examined the injuries on 07.06.2003 at about 10 p.m. According to the medical report, all the injuries were found simple in nature and fresh.

(3.) After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet, Ex-Ka6. The case was committed to the Court of Session. The charge under Section 307 of the I.P.C. was framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to establish the charge against the appellant, examined seven witnesses. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned trial court heard arguments, appreciated the evidences and held that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the appellant.