GANGA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment and order of their conviction dated 3.5.2010, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 49/2008. Learned Sessions Judge tried the brothers duo, namely, Ganga Singh and Ganesh Singh (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'A1' and 'A2' respectively) and convicted 'them for the offences under Section 302/34, 323/34 IPC, in Crime No. 1/2008, Patti Gagwarsue -1, PS Pauri Garhwal. Both A1 and A2 have been directed to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/ - each for the offence of Section 302/34 IPC. They have also been punished with six months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence of Section 323/34 IPC. Learned Sessions Judge has further directed that out of the amount of fine, Rs. 50,000/ - shall be paid to the PW2 Smt. Sushila Devi, the wife of deceased, as compensation. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Gajendra Singh Rawat, son of the deceased Mahipat Singh Rawat, lodged an FIR with the Patwari concerned on 19.8.2008 at 8 AM (In rural hilly areas of State of Uttarakhand, the Patwaris and certain revenue officials are vested with police powers vide U.P. Govt. Notification No. 494/VIII -418 -16 dated 7/3/1916). The complainant averred in the said FIR that on 18.8.2008, at 9 O'clock in the morning, his father Mahipal Singh Rawat had gone to his field for cattle grazing. His mother Smt. Sushila Devi had also gone to collect the grass. While cutting the grass, his mother saw that A1 and A2, who were near the P.N.T. Colony, hurled abuses on his father and also pelted stones on him from a height. They also came to kill his father. On this, his mother fled away from there in order to save herself. However, A1 and A2 chased his father while pelting stones on him and drove him towards the jungle. Being frightened, his mother came back to the house, but his father did not come. Subsequently, with the help of the villagers, he made massive hunt to search his father in the jungle, where his father was found dead as he had succumbed to his injuries. The complainant also averred that case against A1 and A2 regarding land dispute was going on in the Court. This FIR is Ex. Ka -1, on the basis of which Chick FIR Ex. Ka -5 was prepared.

(2.) SUBSEQUENT to lodging of the aforesaid FIR, criminal justice machinery came into action. Inquest report Ex. Ka -7 was prepared on 19.8.2008 itself. Panches of the inquest opined that the deceased died on account of ante mortem injuries. Thereafter the dead body was sent for post -mortem examination, which was conducted by PW4 Dr. Upendra Agarwal on 19.8.2008 at 2 PM. During the course of post -mortem examination, he also prepared the autopsy report Ex. Ka -4. Investigation ended in submission of chargesheet Ex. Ka -15 against A1 and A2.

(3.) PROSECUTION , in order to prove its case, examined as many as seven witnesses. PW1 Gajendra Singh Rawat is the complainant, PW2 Smt. Sushila Devi, wife of the deceased, is an eyewitness of the incident, PW3 is Dr. S.K. Jain, who medically examined Smt. Sushila Devi, PW4 is Dr. Upendra Agarwal, who conducted the autopsy, PW5 Nagendra Singh Rawat is the witness of recovery of slippers of the deceased from the place of occurrence, PW6 is Patwari Anand Mani Khanduri and PW7 Bachan Singh Rana is the Investigation Officer of the case.