SAPPAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants Sappar and Chhote Lal (both are real brothers), residents of the same village, were tried for the offences under Section 308/34, 325/34, 323/34, 504 and 506 IPC. The learned Trial Judge found the guilt of both the accused/appellants proved only for the offence under Section 323 and 325 IPC, while for rest of the offences they have been set free. The Sessions Trial No. 39/2002 pertains to the Crime No. 233/2001, Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar.

(2.) THE victim Smt. Suresho Devi is a lady of around 35 years of age. The facts emerging out from the FIR lodged by Mr. Chhajmal (informant, husband of the victim) are that on 25.09.2001, around 9 P.M., the accused persons Sappar and Chhote Lal along with father Mr. Bal Chandra entered in the house of the informant and began to beat Smt. Suresho with the batons in their hands. They were also hurling filthy abuses to her. Hearing hue and cry, Prakash S/o Jhandu and Suraj Mal S/o Jhandu, residents of village Maharajpur, reached at the spot and saw the occurrence. The informant and the witnesses scolded the assailants. Seeing the arrival of the informant and the witnesses, the miscreants took to their heels intimidating the victim to see in the future. When informant and the witnesses reached close to the injured Smt. Suresho, they found that she was bitterly injured by the accused persons. On account of such injuries, she has become unconscious. There were many fractures on her body. She was immediately shifted to the Government Hospital, where she was extensively medically treated to save her life. The FIR could be lodged on 27.09.2001 at 6:30 P.M. The investigation ended into submission of charge sheet against the accused/appellants Sappar and Chhote Lal, while their father Bal Chandra was absolved by the Investigation Officer.

(3.) THE deposition of Smt. Suresho (PW1), who is the victim and injured, is corroborated by Suraj Mal (PW2, an eyewitness of the incident). Dr. S.C. Srivastava (PW3) has proved the injuries of PW1. It is pertinent to mention that in the FIR as well as testimony of PW1, the motive of the appellants has been disclosed.