RAJPAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PW 1 Ram Saran wrote a complaint (Ex.Ka -1) to Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar on 15.07.1991, which was registered as case crime no.115A/1991 against the accused persons. According to the complaint, when complainant's uncle (i.e. Jassi) was returning to his house (from his cowshed) in the intervening night of 14/15.07.1991, he came in front of Rajpal's house. Rajpal's house was on the way to his house. Since Rajpal's cow was on the way, therefore, the same created problem for the passersby. The complainant's uncle requested Rajpal to remove obstacle so that the people may go freely on the pathway. Annoyed by the same, Rajpal Singh started hurling abuses at complainant's uncle. When the complainant's uncle refrained him from doing so, Rajpal, Bishambar (Rajpal's brother) and Dharampal came alongwith sticks and assaulted complainant's uncle. When the injured raised an alarm, co -villagers, namely, Baleshwar, Rampal, Lal Singh and Fullu reached there and intervened. The complainant's uncle sustained injuries on his person. He was taken to the hospital for medical aid and examination of his injuries.

(2.) INVESTIGATION began on the basis of said first information report. After investigation of the case, a charge -sheet (Ex.Ka -11) was submitted against accused persons, namely, Rajpal, Dharampal and Bishambar for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 308 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charges against the accused persons were framed for the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) PW 1 Ram Saran, PW2 Jassi, PW3 Baleshwar, PW4 Rampal Singh, PW5 Dr. Ajay Kumar, PW6 Ajay Kumar (Storekeeper at Civil Hospital), PW7 Constable Vinod Kumar Tyagi, PW8 Dr. Arun Kumar, PW9 S.I. Bhaiya Lal and PW10 S.I. Ramesh Kumar Chaudhary 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 on account of enmity. No evidence was given in defence.