RAKESH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Pappi alias Sachin addressed a complaint to Police Station Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar on 31.10.1993 at 7:00 a.m. enumerating the facts therein that on 30.10.1993, at 10:00 p.m., when procession of Balmiki Jayanti passed off peacefully, Rakesh. Pradhan (head) of Balmiki Jayanti Sabha along with Praveen, Bhondu, Pitambar and Mahendra came to the house of informant. Rakesh demanded chanda (subscription) from Pappi's father Bhopal, to which he (informant's father) denied, saying that he had no money. Praveen got infuriated and instructed his companions to lift him (Bhopal) up and kill him. Accordingly, they beat Bhopal and inflicted injuries on him with lathis (sticks) and saria (iron rod). When informant along with Satyapal and Sundar exhorted accused persons, informant Pappi was also beaten. Victim Bhopal was taken to Bhagwanpur Hospital, where the doctor was not available. Thereafter, victim was admitted in Roorkee Hospital, where he died in the night.

(2.) CHIK FIR was registered on 31.10.1993 at 7:00 a.m. in PS Bhagwanpur in connection with offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC. The occurrence took place on 30.10.1993 at 10:00 p.m. Although the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station concerned was 01 kilometer only but since the incident took place in the night, therefore, there appeared to be no delay in lodging the First Information Report.

(3.) PW 1 Pappi alias Sachin, in his examination -in -chief, not only proved the ingredients of his complaint (Ext. Ka -1) but also proved prosecution story, being an injured eyewitness. The facts disclosed by him in his first information report are not being reproduced here for the sake of brevity. He requested the village pradhan to write the report and after putting in his signatures, submitted the same in PS concerned. He was cross -examined at length, but nothing appeared in his cross -examination, which might suggest that the informant -eyewitness was telling a lie. Neither PW 1's presence on the place of incident was in doubt, nor eyewitness account rendered by him. His evidence was acceptable.