MAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE heard this matter on 23 rd December, 2010. After hearing when we were about to dictate the order, the learned counsel for the prosecution sought time to consider whether the Post Mortem Report was exhibited since he noticed that an exhibit number has been given to the Post Mortem Report. We accordingly, granted time to learned counsel for the prosecution. Today the appeal is listed for hearing. Unfortunately, the learned counsel for the prosecution is not present for he had to leave station to attend to his ailing wife. He has caused this information to be supplied to us through Sri B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder. Learned counsel for the prosecution, however, has not informed us through Sri B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder whether the Post Mortem Report was infact tendered in evidence and the same was proved. From the records, it appears that the Post Mortem Report was identified as Paper No.13 Ka but the same was not tendered in evidence.

(2.) WE have considered the materials on record and have found that the first information report was lodged by the father of the victim on the basis of information received by him through the father of another lady who accompanied the victim in Jungle to collect firewood. The first information report was investigated and thereupon a chargesheet was filed against the accused. It was alleged in the chargesheet that two ladies went to the forest to collect firewood. No sooner they reached the forest, it started raining. The ladies then decided to return home. While they were returning, the accused attacked and killed the victim with Patal, claimed to be a sharp edged weapon. Soon after the chargesheet was filed, the accused disappeared. Accordingly, prosecution took recourse to Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At that stage, the father of the victim i.e. the person who lodged the first information report was examined and at the same time, the lady who accompanied the victim at the time of assault on her, was examined. The prosecution, however, at that stage did not prove the Post Mortem Report, although the same was brought on record of the Court.

(3.) THE lady, who was accompanying the victim at the time when she was assaulted, deposed in cross examination that while going to the Jungle she saw the accused sitting with the Patal in his hand. She then stated that after they reached the Jungle, it started raining and accordingly, they decided that they will return home. She then added that while they were returning she was walking ahead of the victim and at that time the accused attacked the victim from behind and assaulted her with Patal. She turned around and saw that the victim is falling on the ground but as the victim started chasing her, she, in order to save her, ran away from there and hide herself in a bush. She also stated that after hiding for sometime, she left the place, came to the river, crossed the same with the assistance of the person who was feeding cattle nearby and then returned home and narrated her story to her father.