LAXMAN RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the convicts Laxman Ram and Basant Ram (real brothers) have preferred this jail appeal through proper channel against the judgment and order dated 26/27.8.2011 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No.23 of 2009. The said trial pertains to crime no.6 of 2009 at police station Thal, District Pithoragarh. Both the appellants were tried jointly for the offence of section 304 and 323 IPC. The trial culminated into their conviction for the said offences, wherefor they have appropriately been sentenced.

(2.) AS the prosecution facts, emerging out from the first information report (Ex.Ka -1), reveal that the informant Pradeep Singh, along with his uncle Anand Singh and father Gopal Singh, was returning after celebration of Holi festival at some local temple and while they were passing through village Lodhia Thal, they found the appellants quarrelling with the people of their own village. So, the informant and his uncle Anand Singh persuaded them not to quarrel as it was a sacred festival of Holi. This all could not be endured by the appellants and they pounced over the informant and his uncle Anand Singh with Lathis and batons in their hands. As a result, Anand Singh, being seriously injured, fell down on the earth and became unconscious. To some extent, informant too suffered injuries in his eyes and other parts of the body. The mortally wounded Anand Singh was shifted to local hospital at Didihat with the aid and assistance of Village Pradhan Kishan Ram and one Naveen Ram. Since his condition was critical, hence he was referred firstly to district hospital, Pithoragarh, subsequently to Sushila Tewari Medical College at Haldwani and lastly to P.G.I. Chandigarh where he breathed his last on 18.3.2009. Since Pradeep Singh Karki, nephew of informant, was busy in the treatment of his uncle, hence the FIR could be lodged on 13.3.2009 at 11:05 AM. Chick report thereof of is Ex.Ka -3. Police submitted chargesheet against both the appellants for the offence of sections 323 and 304 IPC, wherefor they were charged. The trial ended into their conviction, as afore -stated.

(3.) LEARNED amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant has argued that the statement of injured was not ever taken by the Investigating Officer. This argument is totally unsubstantial for the reason that eversince he was injured seriously, he remained unconscious all throughout and his condition was so critical as to make any statement regarding this incident. This has been proved by PW3 Dr. Munna Singh, who on the relevant date, was posted in Primary Health Center, Didihat. The following injures were noted by PW3 on the body of injured: -