BHUPENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Bhupendra is before the Court challenging the judgment and order dated 21.12.2011, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No.11 of 2011, whereby he was found guilty for the offence of section 307 IPC and was sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment in addition to fine of Rs.5,000/ -.

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the appellant resided in the close vicinity of injured Ms. Bhawna (PW1). On the relevant date, the husband of PW1 was out of house for his job somewhere, so she was all alone in the house because her children resided along with her mother -in -law at another house. So, with a sense of security, she went to sleep in the nearby house of her younger brother -in -law. The wife of her brother -in -law Ms. Manwati Devi (PW2) was also all alone in her house in that night because her husband was also out for some work. These two ladies were present and sleeping in the same room as displayed by the Investigating Officer in the site map. Appellant nurtured a grudge since long against PW1 because she used to resist the grazing of cattles let free in her fields by the appellants. In the fateful night of incident of 10/11.5.2011 at the wee hours, he allegedly entered in the house of victim with a feeling of revenge, but did not find her there. It has been alleged by prosecution that the appellant broke the television and other domestic items in the house of PW1 because none was there. But learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the appellant from the charges of section 457 and 380 IPC for want of evidence that the items present in the house of PW1 were broken and stolen by this very appellant.

(3.) AFTER doing the alleged mischief in the house of PW1 (which has not been proved, so he has been acquitted for those offences), appellant came to the house of PW2 estimating the presence of PW1 there. He was having a Torch in his hand, so in order to make sure the identity of PW1, he ignited torch on her face and made sure that the sleeping lady was PW1. He then gave a blow of hoe on the head of PW1 making her seriously injured. The blow was so powerful that the weapon of assault hit at the ceiling of the room and it was almost broken and later on, by hitting on the head of PW1, it was finally broken. Being seriously injured, PW1 opened her eyes in utter panic and her sister -in -law (DEVRANI), who was sleeping in the nearby cot, also woke up and identified the appellant. Both these ladies have uniformly corroborated the evidence, as has been stated in the F.I.R. There is no infirmity, incongruity or any discrepancy in their evidence. Nothing has been elicited on record to project the false implication of the appellant by these two innocent, rustic, rural and illiterate ladies.