IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Appeal No.925 of 2001 (Old No.834/1999) Mohan Singh & others … Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand … Respondent Mr. Ahrar Baig, learned amicus curiae for the appellant- Chhuttu Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned G.A. assisted by Mr. H.M. Bhakuni, Advocate for the respondent Dated: July 20, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this appeal, the judgment and order of the trial court dated 31.3.1999 is under challenge, wherein Sessions Trial No.178 of 1996, State Vs. Mohan Singh & three others, ended in conviction of the accused. There were four accused persons, namely, Mohan Singh, Govind Singh @ Gopal Singh, Surendra Chand and Chhuttu, who were tried for the offence u/s 307 IPC, but after the trial, the learned District and Sessions Judge has convicted all the four accused persons for the offence of Section 324 IPC and sentenced each of them for three years’ R.I. besides the fine of Rs.2,500/- payable by each. 2. During the pendency of this appeal, one of the appellants/accused Suresh Chandra @ Kuri breathed his last, so the appeal stood abated against him. 3. Two accused Mohan Singh and Govind Singh @ Gopal Singh have entered into compromise with the complainant Dev Singh and his wife Smt. Saraswati in front of this Court, so their conviction was set aside on 2 the ground of the offence being compoundable. Now, the accused/appellant Chuttu remains to be heard. He was not represented by any of the defence counsel, so Mr. Ahrar Baig, Advocate was appointed by this Court as amicus curiae. 4. The incident occurred way back on 27.3.1994 at about 12:30 P.M., when Dev Singh along with his wife was planting the saplings of onion in his agricultural field, among the accused persons, Mohan Singh armed with Lathi, Gopal Singh with axe, Suresh Chand @ Kuri and Chuttu, both armed with DAAV (a sharp edged weapon) came to the complainant and assailed him. Gopal Singh exhorted the rest of his accused companions to kill Dev Singh and his wife and not permit them to escape from the spot. Being encouraged by this exhortion, Mohan Singh gave a blow of Lathi and rest of the accused also applied their respective weapons upon the injured. When the noise was raised by Dev Singh and his wife, the nearby persons, named Jasveer Singh and others came to their rescue. When the nearby persons came to save Dev Singh, the accused persons took to their heels from the spot. Dev Singh took his wife with him and went to the police station to lodge the First Information Report. The first information report was lodged in the police station at about 1:30 PM, which is 5 kilometers away from the spot of occurrence. After investigation, the chargesheet was submitted and having recorded the evidence of the witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused, as aforesaid mentioned. 5. I have heard Sri Ahrar Baig, learned amicus curaie for the appellant-Chuttu and Sri G.S. Sandhu, learned 3 GA assisted by Mr. H.M. Bhakuni, learned counsel for the State. 6. Learned amicus curiae drawn the attention of this Court towards certain inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of the injured witnesses. But after perusal of the statements of the injured witnesses, supported by an independent villager who has deposed as PW5, this Court is of the view that there is no major contradiction or inconsistency or exaggeration or embellishment in the statement of the witnesses. In the spirit, they all corroborate the incident. PW1 has proved that the accused Chhuttu was armed with DAAO and came to his agricultural field. They all assailed him along with his wife to make them injured. This statement of PW1 is corroborated with that of PW2. PW2 Saraswati Devi has deposed that Chhuttu along with other co- accused persons, came to the spot and gave blow to her husband. In the likewise manner, PW5 has also corroborated the statement of these witnesses and very categorically, he has stated in his examination in chief as well as in his cross examination that accused Chhuttu gave a blow by the weapon (DAAO) which was in his hand. PW3, the medical officer has proved the injury report and it has been proved in so many words that injured Dev Singh has the injury of incised wound 5 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep on the left side of head, 13 cm. above left ear, margins whereof were regular and bleeding was present. 7. This has now been a settled law that no criminal case is free from any contradiction or inconsistency. 4 8. Firstly, there is no such inconsistency or contradiction in the oral testimony of the witnesses. Even if some contradictions are taken into account, as indicated by the learned amicus curiae, then these are so minor one, as do not deserve to be taken into consideration where the testimony of the eyewitnesses, including the injured one, supported by the medical evidence, is present. 9. In view of the above, there is no force in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Conviction, as recorded by the trial court, is sustained and let the file be remitted back to the court below for compliance. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 20.07.2011 Rajeev Dang