STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Vs. KUNWARI DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two first information reports were lodged in this case. The incident allegedly took place on 03.04.1999, at 9:00 a.m. 1st FIR was lodged by informant Ravindra on 03.04.1999, at 10:15 a.m. The same was entered in G.D. at the same time. 2nd FIR was filed by Bharat Singh Bhandari, brother of injured Rami Devi, on 04.04.1999. The reason for filing the 2nd FIR was assigned to the fact that the police did not write an appropriate report. Police did not mention the names of the witnesses in the same.

(2.) According to the allegations, on 03.04.1999, when Smt. Rami Devi was working in her field in Ganesh Pur, at 9:00 a.m., her neighbour Kunwari Devi and her son Fauji assaulted Rami Devi. Kunwari Devi and her son hurled abuses at Rami Devi. Kunwari and Fauji gave blows of sticks and spade upon Rami Devi, whereby she sustained injuries. Many a people came on the place of incident, who saved Rami Devi. After the investigation, a charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 328, 504, 506 and 308 IPC was submitted against the accused persons. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charges against the accused persons, namely, Kunwari Devi, Devendra, Dhirendra and Brijendra were framed for the offences punishable under Section 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 506 IPC read with section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) Pw 1 Smt. Rami Devi, PW 2 Bharat Singh, PW 3 Ravindra Singh, PW 4 Prakash, PW 5 Doctor R.K.Singh and PW 6 Constable Rohtash Kumar were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. DW 1 Tahir Ahmad was examined in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Assistant Sessions Judge/1st FTC, Dehradun exonerated the accusedrespondents of the charges levelled against them, vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.04.2002. Aggrieved against the same, present Government Appeal was preferred by the State.