TEJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that there were two cross-cases in the form of S.T. No.236 of 1994, State Vs. Tej Singh and others and S.T. No.237 of 1994, State Vs. Babu Ram and six others. Both were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge/First F.T.C., Haridwar which culminated into the judgment and order of acquittal.

(2.) Babu Ram preferred a DCRLR No.15 of 2004 before this Court which was sought to be withdrawn. The same was thus, permitted to be dismissed on 16.2.2006 as withdrawn. On the other hand, Tej Singh has preferred the instant revision against the judgment and order of acquittal.

(3.) The argument submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist is that all the prosecution witnesses have proved the allegations of the first information report as well as the entire incident. Even the doctors also proved the injury reports but learned Judge passed the impugned judgment of acquittal on the basis of counting one or two more injuries on the body of injured persons. However, learned Judge could not assess as to who was the aggressor, and thus, passed the judgment of acquittal in both the sessions trials. This contention seems to have force because counting one or two more injuries on the body of one party cannot be the basis for determination of the aggressive attitude of the accused persons, nor taking lead in lodging the first information report also by itself cannot determine the aggressiveness of other party. It may just be possible that the party, who was the aggressor, might have suffered more injuries in the quarrel and yet could have taken a lead in lodging the first information report prior to the report lodged by other party, who was defending. So, the time of lodging the first information report or the number of injuries cannot be the sole basis for adjudicating and appreciating the entire evidence. The Court has to separate the grain from the chaff, appreciate the evidence deeply and then to make up the mind as to who was the aggressor in the entire incident.