STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. SURESH PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NEM Chand (PW 1) was the brother and Phoolmati (PW 3) was the wife of deceased Lalta Prasad. The First Information Report was lodged by PW 1. In that, it was stated that it is respondent Suresh Pal, who fired upon the victim, which caused injuries to him, resulting in shifting of the victim to the hospital, where after, the victim died after 11 days of his admission in the hospital. It was stated that, apart from PW 1 and PW 3, Pyare Lal (PW 2), Jagdish and Om Prakash were witnesses to the incident of shooting. After completion of the investigation, respondent Suresh Pal was charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. In course of trial, Jagdish and Om Prakash, who were also witnesses to the incident in question, were not called by the prosecution to give evidence. On behalf of the prosecution, PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 deposed. While PW 1 and PW 3 supported the prosecution case, PW 2 did not; he was declared hostile. Since PW 1 and PW 3 were close relatives of the victim, as was required, their evidence was scrutinized very carefully. PW 1 and PW 3 held out that respondent Suresh Pal was a regular purchaser from the store of the victim and, in course of making purchases thus, created some debts. It was stated that the victim went to the house of respondent Suresh Pal, when he was fired upon by respondent Suresh Pal. That respondent Suresh Pal used to often pay visit to the store of the victim and, in course thereof, created some debts, was not put home otherwise by tendering any corroborative evidence. In the event, respondent Suresh Pal was indebted to the victim, victim may have had gone to the house of respondent Suresh Pal for the purpose of recovery of the debts; but, in the absence of establishment of the fact of indebtedness, the mere allegation of PW 1 and PW 3 that the victim went to the house of respondent Suresh Fal when he was fired upon by respondent Suresh Pal, was unsafe to be accepted and the same has not been correctly accepted by the court below. Further, the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan on the basis of information supplied by PW 3. In course of investigation, the investigation team could not collect any evidence, on the basis whereof, one could come to a definite conclusion that the incident took place at the place, which was shown by PW 3.

(2.) THAT being the situation, the court below has exonerated the respondent. We have not been able to take a different view. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Let a copy of this judgment, alongwith the lower court records, be sent back to the court below.