ANIL @ NEELU Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A First Information Report was lodged by Tara Chand, who, in course of trial, deposed as PW1. This First Information Report was lodged on 9 th December, 1992 at about 10:05 AM. In the Report, it was stated that there is a water outlet from the house of PW1, which was being blocked by Kali Ram on the previous morning, when PW1 requested Kali Ram to see that sufficient space is left so that the water outlet is not altogether closed. On this, there was a quarrel between PW1 and Kali Ram and, on the next date at around 8:00 AM, ten people, armed with deadly weapons, came to the house of PW1, when PW1, his brother Virendra Singh, victim, and the son of PW1 Khem Singh, who deposed as PW3, were sitting. Those ten people and, in particular, appellant Ashok held out to PW1, PW3 and Virendra Singh that today they will be done away with. It was reported in the First Information Report that hearing the same, Virendra Singh, PW1 and PW3 tried to disperse from the place, but Ashok fired from his gun causing injury to Virendra Singh, which injury ultimately caused death of Virendra Singh. This First Information Report was investigated and, in course thereof, a licensed double barrel gun was recovered from the custody of the father of Ashok, Kali Ram. The same was sent for obtaining opinion of the Ballistic Expert along with the empty shells recovered from the place of incident. The dead body of Virendra Singh was also sent for post-mortem and the Post Mortem Report suggested that Virendra Singh received eight injuries, all caused by pellets, and 3 rd , 5 th and 6 th injuries were blackened. The Investigating Officer, in course of investigation, also prepared a site plan of the place of occurrence, as also, of the genus of the occurrence. The Investigating Officer, in course of investigation, found that while Virendra died of ante-mortem injuries sustained by him through pellets; PW1, Shukh Pal, who deposed as PW2, as well as PW3 along with one Shyam Singh, Mithlesh Singh, wife of Khem Singh, Khushi Ram, Suman, Raghubir, Vikram and many others also received injuries. After investigation was over, a charge sheet was filed and, on the basis thereof, charges were framed against 9 people, as in the meantime one of those ten people had died. After conclusion of the trial, six of those nine have been acquitted and remaining three, namely, Ashok, Anil and Pramod have been convicted. Ashok was charged for offences punishable under Section 302, Section 307 read with Section 34, and Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been convicted for offences punishable under the said sections. Anil and Pramod were charged for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 307 read with Section 34 and Section 452 of IPC. They have also been convicted for offences punishable under the said sections. Appellants Ashok, Pramod and Anil have been appropriately sentenced.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, Ashok, Pramod and Anil have preferred an independent appeal each. In view of acquittal of six accused people, the prosecution has also preferred an appeal. Having regard to the fact that the matters spring from the same incident, the appeals are considered and decided together.

(3.) There is hardly any scope of interference with the Government Appeal, inasmuch as, in course of evidence tendered by the prosecution, no specific role was ascribed to any of those six accused people, who have been acquitted. We, accordingly, dismiss the Government Appeal.