MOTI AND TWO OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon an FIR filed by PW2 Ram Gopal, criminal law was set into motion, which culminated in filing of charge-sheet against Ballu, Moti, Rajesh and Khadku under Sections 324, 325, 504 and 307 of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial commenced and prosecution opened it s case, charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC was framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(2.) Pw1 Manoj Kumar, PW2 Ram Gopal, PW3 Govind, PW4 Dr. Ajay Kumar, PW5 Dr. S.P. Ahuja, PW6 S.H.O. Anil Raghav (I.O.), PW7 Head Constable Nisha Sharma and PW8 Rakesh Kumar were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, accused Ballu was exonerated of the charge levelled against him. Instead of convicting accused persons Moti, Rajesh and Khadku under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, they were found guilty and were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34, Section 324 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Section 325 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. All of them were directed to undergo six months imprisonment under Section 323/34 of IPC, two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 324/34 of IPC, and three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 325/34 of IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2002, present criminal appeal was preferred.

(3.) Pw1 Manoj Kumar was the injured. PW5 Dr. S.P. Ahuja examined the injuries of PW1 on 10.05.1994, at 06:15 P.M., in Civil Hospital, Roorkee and proved his report (Ext. Ka-3). PW1 sustained lacerated wound, incised wounds, contusion and linear abrasion. Injury no. 1 (lacerated wound) was kept under observation for which x-ray was advised. Injury nos. 2 and 3 were caused by some sharp edged object. Injury no. 4 was caused by friction by pointed object. Injury nos. 1 and 5 were caused by some blunt object. Injury nos. 2 to 5 were simple in nature. The duration of all the injuries was fresh. X-ray was conducted by PW4 Dr. Ajay Kumar, who, x-rayed skull of the injured and found irregular fracture line in the left parietal bone of skull. In the cross-examination, PW4 Dr. Ajay Kumar (Radiologist) said that the fracture was not likely to cause the death of any person in normal circumstances. It was not fatal to the injured. PW4 did not rule out the possibility that the fracture might be 1-2 months old.