RAMESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint (Ex.Ka-1) was written by the victim-informant (Mahavir Singh Rawat) to the Gram Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Kota Talla, P.O. Dudharkhal Malla Badalpur, Pauri Garhwal enumerating the facts contained therein that he (i.e. informant) was sitting in his house on 29.03.2004 at around 12:00 noon. Satye Singh and Raghuvir Singh Negi called him on the pretext that someone had come to purchase his buffalo's. The victim went to the house of Satye Singh Negi. After some time, when the victim was going to the shop of Ajwar Singh Negi, Raghuvir Singh Negi accompanied him. When both of them reached near the house of Mahavir Singh Negi, accused-appellant Ramesh Singh Rawat assaulted the victim. Mahavir Singh Nagi asked the accused as to why he was assaulting him? The accused-appellant dragged the victim inside his house and gave him further blows. He also threatened him with dire consequences. When the accused appellant was assaulting the victim in his courtyard, appellant's wife Asha Devi and daughter-in-law were witnessing the incident. They did not try to save the victim. A villager Smt. Gaaji Devi reached there and raised an alarm. Another co-villager Bharat Singh Negi reached there and only then the accused appellant released the victim from his clutches. Bharat Singh Negi dropped the victim to his house. Earlier to this incident, the appellant assaulted the victim on 28.01.2004 also.

(2.) The victim further stated in his complaint (Ex.Ka-1) that he is an ex-army man and since his abdomen was operated earlier, therefore, he could not continue to serve the army. He complained that he has sustained serious injuries on 29.03.2004. He was taken to the hospital at Kotdwar for medical treatment.

(3.) On the basis of complaint (Ex.Ka-1), a chick FIR (Ex.Ka-3) was prepared on 03.04.2004 at 10:00 AM. The incident allegedly took place on 29.03.2004 at around 12:00 noon. The distance between the place of incident and the concerned police station was about 3 km. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the FIR has satisfactorily been explained by the prosecution.