IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Government Appeal No. 330 of 2007 (Old No. 623 of 1994) State …………………..Appellant. Versus (1) Dinesh (Since deceased) (2) Jasvir Both S/o Balvir R/o Village Bilbabbarhedi, P.S. Manglaur, District Haridwar. (3) Sunder S/o Rati Ram R/o Village Bilbabbarhedi, P.S. Manglaur, District Haridwar. ………..……..Respondents. Sri H.C. Pujari and Sri Tanuj Semwal, Counsel for the Appellant. Sri S.C. Tyagi, Counsel for the Respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. (Oral- Prafulla C. Pant, J.) This appeal, preferred under Section 378 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.02.1994, passed by II Assistant Sessions Judge, Roorkee, in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 1992, whereby accused / respondents Dinesh, Jasvir and Sunder are acquitted of charge of offences punishable under Sections 452/34 and 307/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.). (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. (3) Prosecution story in brief is that on 15.11.1991, at about 6 P.M., complainant Sohan Veer Singh had gone to a temple in his Village Bilbabbarhedi (within the limits of Police Station Manglaur, District Haridwar). In his absence accused / respondents Dinesh and Jasvir came at his house and threatened his wife of consequences of giving evidence against them. Thereafter, Dinesh, who was armed with ‘TABAL’ (a sharp edged weapon) and Jasvir, armed with ‘BHALA’ (a pointed weapon) started giving blows to Birmati (P.W.2), wife of the complainant. According to the prosecution story, Sohan Veer Singh (P.W.1), complainant, came back from the temple and saw the incident. He shouted for help on which villagers got collected at the spot. First Information Report (Ext.A-1) was lodged with the Police on 16.11.1991 at about 00.15 hours and check report (Ext.A-9) was prepared. Meanwhile, the injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Roorkee, where following injuries were found on the person of the Birmati (injured):- (i) Incised wound 10cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep on the left side of the head. Bleeding present. (ii) Incised wound 9cm x .5cm x bone deep on the lateral side of the head. Bleeding present. (iii) Lacerated wound 6cm x 3cm x bone deep on the right shoulder. Bleeding present. The above injuries were recorded by Dr. S.K. Prabhakar (P.W.4). The crime was investigated by Sub Inspector Surendra Singh Yadav (P.W.5), who submitted charge sheet against all the three accused named in the First Information Report. (4) After the case was committed by the Magistrate to the court of Sessions, charge of offences punishable under Sections 452/34 and 307/34 of I.P.C. were framed against all the three accused Dinesh, Jasvir and Sunder, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined P.W.1 Sohan Veer, P.W.2 Birmati, P.W.3 Anil Kumar, P.W.4 Dr. S.K. Prabhakar, P.W.5 Surendra Singh Yadav and P.W.6 Dr. S.C. Dwivedi (who prepared the X-ray report). After the evidence was put to the accused / respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. no evidence was adduced by them in defence. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the trial court found that the charge of offences punishable under Sections 452/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. are not proved. Hence, the three accused / respondents are acquitted. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 01.02.1994, passed by II Assistant Sessions Judge, Roorkee, in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 1992, this appeal was filed by the State before Allahabad High Court on 20.05.1994. On 21.01.1999, leave was granted by said Court and appeal was admitted. The appeal is received by this Court by transfer under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, for its disposal (5) During pendency of this appeal accused / respondent Dinesh has died and case stood abated as against him as is apparent from the order dated 19.11.2007. Dinesh (since deceased) was the main accused who was armed with TABAL and as against him appeal has already been abated. (6) We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. There is no role assigned in the prosecution story, mentioned in the First Information Report, to accused / respondent Sunder. We agree with the trial court that role of accused / respondent Sunder in commission of crime is doubtful for the reason that the complainant who alleges himself the eyewitness does not disclose his name when narrates the prosecution story in the First Information Report. As far as the role of accused / respondent Jasvir is concerned, he is said to have been armed with BHALA (a pointed weapon). However, injuries found on the person of injured Birmati does not disclose any injury caused by BHALA. There are only three injuries mentioned in the injury report, which include two incised wounds, which probably could have been caused by TABAL and one lacerated wound. The participation of this accused / respondent Jasvir in the commission of crime is also doubtful as there is not injury caused by the weapon, which he is said to have been possessed. (7) Apart from the reasons mentioned above, it is pertinent to mention here that the trial court has given detailed reasons appreciating the evidence on record on the basis of which it arrived to the conclusion that the charges framed against the accused / respondents Jasvir and Sunder did not stand proved. We have gone through the reasons discussed in the impugned judgment and it cannot be said that the conclusion, which is arrived at by the trial court is erroneous. The trial court has taken note of the fact that the incident is dated 15.11.1991, which took place at 6 P.M. and at that time during winters it requires some source of light to see the persons who caused injuries on the person of the injured. No source of light has been disclosed in the First Information Report. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per the report received from the lower court, the record of this case has already been weeded out except the original judgment, which has been sent to this Court as the retained part of the case. (8) In the above circumstances, we have no sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the trial court. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 12.06.2008 NS