GA/40/2001 of STATE Vs RAFIQUE and ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Government Appeal No. 40 of 2001

State of Uttarakhand.

Rafique & others.

Versus

………Appellant

………Respondents

Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / appellant.

BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral)

Taufiq Ahmed (PW3) was injured. Injury was reported to Dr. B.D. Nariyal (PW2), who found that the injured has sustained three injuries, of which, two were caused by gunshot and the other by hard blunt object. First Information Report was lodged by Taukir Ahmed (PW4) in respect of the said incident, where the respondents were named as persons accused. Each of the respondents, after completion of investigation, was charged for having committed offence punishable under Section 307, read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The incident took place in the vicinity of the house of the father-in-law of PW4. The brother of PW3, lodger of the First Information Report (PW4), was allegedly present at the time of incident and, accordingly, is an eye-witness to the incident. What PW3 was doing in the vicinity of the house of the father-in-law of PW4, was not explained by the prosecution or by PW3. PW3 and PW4 held out that the injuries sustained by PW3 were caused by the respondents. Apart from the evidence thus given by PW3 and PW4, there is nothing to link the respondents with the injuries PW3 sustained. The reason for the respondents causing the injuries to PW3 appears to be enmity in between respondent No. 1, who is the husband of the sister of the father of PW4, on the one hand, and father-in-law of PW4, on the other, in connection with some land dispute. Prosecution made no effort to establish that there was, in fact, any such enmity. Neither PW3, nor PW4, and, at the same time, prosecution as whole, made any effort whatsoever to bring on record anything to suggest

that, if there was dispute between the respondents, on the one hand, and the father-in-law of PW4, on the other; why the respondents will try to cause harm to PW3. In course of trial, respondents had brought on record certified copy of judgment rendered by court, wherefrom, it appears that, on the complaint made by the husband of the sister of the father of PW4, the father-in-law of PW4 was sentenced to imprisonment. The said state of affair clearly indicated that there was no just reason, in the background of the factual matrix, for the respondents to use any arm on PW3.

3. There cannot be any dispute that testimony given by an injured has good evidentiary value. It is also not in dispute that eye-witness account of an incident has great evidentiary value. At the same time, there is no dispute that an injured witness does not always speaks the truth. It is, at the same time, requirement for the court to believe that the person, accounting the eye-witness account, is credible witness and is speaking the truth. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below has not accepted the prosecution version and, accordingly, has exonerated the respondents of the charge that was levelled against them. The present frivolous appeal has been preferred for no just reason. judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, rendered in the case of Dayal Singh and others vs. State of Uttaranchal, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 263, has been cited without even bothering to understand the purport of the said judgment.

4. I, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.

5. Let copy of this judgment be sent to the court below, along with the lower court records.

(Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 01.12.2012