AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT criminal revision is preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 30.09.2009, passed by Additional Session Judge/First Fast Track Court, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2007, whereby learned Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial court Roorkee in Criminal Case No. 1758 of 2006 dated 20.09.2007 whereby Learned Trial Court held the Revisionists guilty under section 326/34 IPC and awarded 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5000 each and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional 3 months simple imprisonment. As per the prosecution story, PW2 Kashmiri lodged the F.I.R on 04.01.1996 at 8:30 pm at Police Station, Roorkee, stating therein that Amar Singh and his son Manjeet Singh became known to her husband PW1 injured Joginder Singh, during the course of his job; after sometime Amar Singh requested for a place to stay for few days, so PW2 Kashmiri rented the house but later on PW1 and PW2 found that company of Manjeet Singh was not good; therefore, PW2 asked Revisionists to vacate their rented house and also made a complain against Manjeet Singh; this evoked some grudges between the parties; On 3/01/1996 at 6 A.M., while Injured PW1 was passing the colony, Amar Singh and Manjeet Singh, in front of PW4 Chandrakala's house, with the intention to kill PW1 Joginder Singh, started abusing and beating him with Palkati and Lathi, which caused serious injuries on PW1; PW5 Faiju hasan, PW4 Chandrakala, PW3 Hawaldar Joginder Singh, Ajit Singh and Noor Hasan and others came on the spot; appeased the situation and then PW3 Hawaldar Joginder Singh, took the Injured PW1 to the hospital and when his condition became stable, PW2 Kashmiri, wife of the injured, reported the incident to the Police, whereupon an F.I.R. was registered under Section 323/324/504 IPC and after recording the statements of the witnesses charge sheet under section 323/324/325/308 and 504 IPC was submitted in the court.

(2.) TO prove the prosecution story, PW1 Injured Joginder Singh, PW2 Kashmiri wife of injured, PW3 Hawaldar Joginder Singh, PW4 Chandrakala, PW5 Faiju, PW6 Ajay Kumar, PW7 S.S. Shukla, were examined.

(3.) PW 1 Injured Joginder Singh, PW2 Kashmiri, PW3 Hawaldar Joginder Singh, PW4 Shrimati Chandrakala have, in one voice, supported the prosecution story. Statements of Injured Joginder Singh and PW4 Chandrakala an eye -witness stood corroborated by the injuries report and statements of the doctors PW6 and PW7. Having perused the Judgment and record of the present case, I do not find any justification to take contrary view to the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below. Therefore, revision fails and same is dismissed, accordingly.