State Of Uttarakhand vs Naresh Chandra Baunthiyal And Others

R.C. Khulbe, J

This appeal, preferred by the Government u/s 378 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed

against the judgment and order dated 18.07.2005 passed by the J.M. 1st Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, in Criminal Case No.358/2001, State Vs.

Naresh Chandra and others, whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents under Sections 323, 341, 352, 504, 506 of IPC.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that PW1 Mahesh Chandra submitted an information Ex. Ka-1 to Revenue Inspector, Sheila Devi Khal,

Garhwal on 22.05.2001 against the respondents, accordingly, Chick FIR Ex.Ka-3 was lodged at Revenue Circle Sheila on 22.05.2001 at 3 p.m. After

the investigation, charge sheet Ex.Ka-7 was submitted against the respondents, accordingly, cognizance was taken on 28.06.2001 by the concerned

Magistrate. After giving necessary copies to respondents as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C., charges under Sections 352, 323, 341, 504, 506 IPC

were framed. The respondents denied the allegations and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution produced PW1 Mahesh Chandra(Informant), PW2 Chandi Prasad, PW3 Gopal Singh Adhikar, PW4 Anushiya Prasad, PW5 Vijay

Prakash and PW6 Dharambeer Singh.

After completion of the prosecution evidence statements of accused/respondents recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The respondents denied all

the allegations. In defence they did not produce any evidence.

After hearing both the parties, learned Magistrate came to this conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt,

accordingly, respondents/accused were acquitted for the offence as mentioned in para no.1 of this judgment. Aggrieved by it, the present appeal is

preferred by the State.

Heard the learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for respondents.

I have also gone through the entire record and evidence produced before the trial Court. As per the First Information Report, the occurrence took

place on 20.05.2001 at 3 P.M in the meeting of Gram Sabha, Devi Khal, while the information by the Gram Pradhan PW1 Mahesh Chandra Kala was

given on 22.05.2001 at 3 P.M. This delay was not properly explained by PW1 Mahesh Chandra. As per the FIR, the respondents/accused committed

marpeet with the informant but there is no medical report on record, which show that the respondents/accused committed marpeet in the meeting

with the informant. As per the evidence the respondents/accused only caught the collar of shirt belong to the informant in the meeting. While eye

witness PW2 Chandi Prasad clearly stated in his cross-examination that he was not in the meeting, he was standing outside of the room. He did not

see the occurrence. PW3 Gopal Singh Adhikar clearly stated in his cross-examination that the respondents did not obstruct in the meeting and did not

give any threatening to the informant regarding death or grievous hurt.

Prosecution produced PW4 Anushiya Prasad, as per the FIR, who was also the eye witness of the incident, but he clearly stated in his cross-

examination that the respondents/accused did not give any threatening to PW-1 Mahesh Chandra in the meeting. These types of minor incident always

happened in the Gram Sabha meeting.

PW5 Vijay Pal Singh Kala also stated in his statement that the respondents/accused did not tear any government papers in his presence. The

informant-Mahesh Chandra did not receive any injury. These types of minor incidents always happened in the general meeting. The

respondent/accused did not commit any incident like this.

From the perusal of the above evidence, I also came to this conclusion that the respondents did not give any threatening and never used any

abusive language in the meeting. As regard to the marpeet is concerned, although as per the FIR, the informant received injuries but there is no

evidence on record to show that the respondents committed marpeet with the informant-Mahesh Chandra.

The learned Trial Court rightly assessed the evidence as produced by the prosecution and rightly came to this conclusion that the prosecution has

failed to prove the evidence beyond reasonable doubt. There is no clinching evidence against the respondents. The judgment passed by the trial court

is according to law and is based on evidence, accordingly, there is no scope for interference in the impugned judgment, in these circumstances, the

present appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present government appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2005 passed

by Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Case No.358/2001 State Vs. Naresh Chandra and others, is hereby confirmed.