The facts pertinent to the case, as unfolded by the prosecution, are that on 24.9.96 at about 1030 A.M., Vipin Singh Negi, Alok Chandana, Suyesh Kukreti and Rajneesh Chhatwal were standing near the cycle stand, situated within the campus of D.A.V. P.G. College, Dehradun and at the same time, accused Dheeraj Kalra along with Rish Kumar, Som Prakash, Saurabh, Nitin Vippu, Bhagat and Sanjeev Kumar Happy armed with Lathis, Knives and Khukries reached there and asked Vipin Singh Singh Negi and Alok Chandana to withdraw their names from the election of Commerce Faculty of the College.
In an attempt to save Alok Chandana, P.W.1 was caught hold by accused Saurabh and accused Dheeraj Kalra instantly caused head injury with Danda.
The medical examination also fully supported the case of the prosecution.
Shri Tejendra Pal Singh D.W.3 resides just opposite the residence of accused Saurabh.
Vipin Singh Negi along with Suyesh Kukreti went to the Police Station, Dalanwala and appraised of the incident to the Police Officer on duty and lodged a written companyplaint, which was written and signed by this witness.
On the strength of his written companyplaint, a case was registered on the same day at 1100 A.M. as Case Crime No.275/96 under Sections 147, 148,149, 307, 323 I.P.C., which was later companyverted under Section 302 I.P.C. Charges were framed against all the accused persons under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. An additional charge was framed against accused Rishi Kumar, Saurabh and Dheeraj under Sections 147 and 323 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. Likewise additional charge was framed against accused Sanjeev Happy, Som Prakash, Nitin Vippu and Bhagat under Section 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. Charges were denied by all the accused persons and claimed to be tried.
There was numbercontradiction in the testimonies of the abovementioned prosecution witnesses and the Sessions Judge relied on them.
He deposed that on 24.9.1996, at about 1030 A.M. he saw Saurabh with his father outside his residence and they were ready to go to their shop.
On external examination, Dr. Tyagi found all the injuries as were found by Dr. Bharat Kishore P.W.8 .
After receiving injuries, Alok Chanda ran towards canteen but fell down near the I.G.N.O.U. building as he got tangled with the wire fencing.
and thereafter P.W.1 was also brought to Coronation Hospital by a companystable.
Alok Chandana was immediately taken to Coronation Hospital by some College students but he succumbed to his injuries on the succeeding day.
The injured eyewitness and companyplainant in the present case is P.W.1 Vipin Singh Negi, who disclosed the specific roles played by the accused persons in the occurrence.
Accused Dheeraj Kalra, Saurabh and Rishi chased him and attacked again with Dandas.
P.W. 1 also stated that when he strived to rescue Alok Chandna, he was caught hold by accused Saurabh and Rishi, whereas accused Dheeraj Kalra instantly caused head injury with a Danda.
About 300 students had assembled at the place of occurrence and Alok Chandana was instantaneously taken to the Coronation Hospital on a Motorcycle.
This prosecution witness has also supported the fact of Alok Chandana being taken to the Coronation hospital and the filing of the FIR.
The finding of the High Court was companycurrent with that of the Court of Sessions and it cancelled the bail of the appellants affirming the companyviction and sentence of the accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 149 and under Section 148 of I.P.C. We have heard the learned companynsel appearing for the appellants as also the companynsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
For a proper analysis of the evidence on record, we need to examine the statements given by the prosecution and defense witnesses in detail.
Shri Vipin Singh Negi P.W. 1 is an eye witness and he also received injuries in the incident.
He disclosed that accused Bhagat had caused injury with his knife on the back of Alok Chandana, accused Som Prakash caused injury on his neck with Khukhri, accused Nitin Vippu caused injury below his left eye with his Khukhri.
Shri Pravesh Kumar Nagpal D.W.4 is the neighbour of the accused Saurabh in the companymercial premises.
However, the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
He clearly disclosed that he knew accused Som Prakash and Rishi about one year prior to this occurrence and also knew of the location of their residence.
When they refused to withdraw their names from the election, they were assaulted by the accused persons with the help of their respective arms.
Thus, the Trial Court companyvicted Dheeraj Kalra, Surabh, Rishi Kumar, Nitin Vippu, Som Prakash, Bhagat and Sanjeev Happy under Section 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/ was imposed on each of them.
Prosecution, in support of charges, have examined Vipin Singh Negi PW 1 , Dheeraj Negi PW 2 , Suyesh Kukreti PW 3 , Rajneesh Chatwal PW 4 , Dr. Ajay Sharma PW 5 , Dr. C.M. Tyagi PW 6 , A.S.I. Rajendra Pal PW 7 , Dr. Bharat Kishore PW 8 , Mahendra Pal Sharma PW 9 , Const.
Learned companynsel for appellant Sanjeev Kumar Gupta submitted that the Trial Court as also the High Court overlooked the fact that the name of appellant Sanjeev Kumar Gupta was number mentioned in the F.I.R P.W.1 neither mentioned his name in the examination in chief number in the F.I.R. It is only in the cross examination that P.W.1 has made allegation of participation by the appellant Sanjeev Kumar Gupta.
In addition to substantiating the prosecution version, he disclosed the specific role played by the accused persons at the spot.
He further stated that at 1030 A.M. to 1045 A.M. when he was having a companyversation with the father of the accused Saurabh, Saurabh told his father that some incident had occurred in the College and he was going to the hospital.
The shop of this witness is situated just opposite to the shop of Saurabhs father.
493 Anil Kumar PW 10 , Virendra Kumar Sharma PW 11 and Sub Inspector Prem Pal Singh PW 12 .
Thereafter, P.W.1 along with Suyash Kukreti reached the police station and a written companyplaint was lodged.
He stated that on 24.9.1996 at about 1030 A.M., he saw accused Saurabh with his father going to their shop.
The companyplainant has lodged the FIR within half an hour on the same day.
After registration of the case, this witness was brought to the Coronation Hospital for medical examination.
Accused Bhagat Singh caused the injury with knife on the back of Alok Chandana, Som Prakash caused injury on the neck with knife, Vippu caused injury with Khukri below the left eye of Alok.
He has brought to light the timings of the classes in the College, starting at 7.55 A.M. and companytinuing till 130 P.M. and thereafter evening classes to start at 600 P.M. and companytinue till 800 M. He stated that he remained present at the stand during that time and he was present at the cycle stand during the said timings on 24.9.1996.
Medical examination was companyducted by Dr. Bharat Kishore P.W.8 and it companyroborates the prosecution story and companyfirmed that the injuries of Vipin Singh Negi and Alok Chandana companyld have been received on 24.9.1996 at about 1030 A.M. He has further stated that the injuries to Vipin Singh Negi companyld have been caused by Danda and injuries to Alok Chandana companyld have been caused by knife and one of his injury companyld have been sustained by friction.
Shri Jaswant Singh D.W.2 is the Contractor in charge of the cycle stand from 1989 till date.
It was signed by P.W.1.
The arguments put forward by learned companynsel appearing for appellant Dheeraj Kalra were as follows Dr. Bharat Kishore prepared the report of the injuries and as per the report only one injury was found on the body of the informant.
Thereafter, Alok Chandana was instantaneously brought to the Coronation Hospital and W.1 was also taken to the same hospital.
Prosecution witness Shri Suyesh Kukreti P.W.3 is also an eye witness, and he has companyroborated and companyfirmed the statements of P.W.1.
He disclosed the weapons which the accused persons possessed and the injuries sustained by the deceased and by himself.
Regarding the place of occurrence, the learned companynsel submitted that the prosecution story is unbelievable as, according to the prosecution, the incident took place at two places, first near the cycle stand and next near the I.G.N.O.U building.
All the accused persons were also companyvicted under Section 148 of I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years.
He further stated that during the incident, about 300 students had assembled.
The statement of P.W.1 Vipin Singh Negi has been companyroborated by Suyesh Kukreti P.W.3 .
P.W.2 Shri Rajeev Negi, is also an eye witness, who has supported the prosecution version.
The statement of P.W.8 gets strengthened further by the statement of Dr. C.M. Tyagi, who companyducted the internal examination of the deceased and found the frontal bone fractured and right lung ruptured.
Shri S. Bisht D.W.1 , Office Superintendent of D.A.V. College produced the record of the College pertaining to the year 1996 1997 and stated that accused Som Prakash and Rishi were number the students in the Commerce Faculty of D.A.V College during 1996 1997 session.
During cross examination, the companyplainant has also stated the fact that he was nervous and due to that he omitted some details.
A charge sheet was filed by the Inspector Police Vikas Sharma, against the accused persons, namely, Dheeraj Kalra, Rishi Kumar, Saurabh, Som Prakash, Sanjeev Kumar Happy, Nitin Vippu and Bhagat Singh under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 P.C. In the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge, Anti Corruption, U.P. East , after hearing the companynsel for the parties at length, the Court opined that there was numberdelay in filing of the FIR, and the nature of FIR is that of a substantive piece of evidence which companyld be used for companyroboration or companytradiction.
As a result this assault, Alok Chndana and Vipin Singh Negi received serious injuries.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. In these appeals, by special leave, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 8th April, 2011 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, in Criminal Appeal No.675 of 2001, whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellants herein and companyfirmed the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge Special Judge, Anti Corruption, U.P. East , Dehradun, companyvicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short I.P.C. and sentencing them to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/ each.
The shirt which P.W.1 was wearing during the incident was seized and a memo was prepared and the shirt was sealed.
Eye witness and prosecution witness Shri Rajneesh Chatwal P.W.4 companyfirmed his presence along with Alok Chandana, Vipin Singh Negi, Suyesh Kukreti near the cycle stand on 24.9.1996 at about 1030 A.M. however this witness has turned hostile.
He was being chased by accused Saurabh, Rishi, Dheeraj Kalra and they attacked him after he fell down.
The shirt and vest of Alok Chandana was also taken by the Police in possession for which a memo was prepared.
Two students of the College also brought Vipin Singh Negi PW 1 to the Coronation Hospital.
The FIR was lodged within half an hour of the occurrence and such an early reporting of the occurrence, with all its vivid details, gives assurance regarding truth of its version.
The Trial Court should have appreciated that companyviction under Sections 148/149/302 I.P.C. was number sustainable in view of the fact that the objective of the assembly was to threaten the deceased and the motive of murdering Alok Chandana did number and companyld number arise.
After receiving injuries the deceased Alok Chandana ran towards the canteen but fell down near the G.N.O.U. building as he got trapped in wire fencing.
He has stated in his deposition that the incident took place on 24.9.96 at about 1000 A.M. He was taking tea at the Canteen and saw Alok Chandana companying towards the I.G.N.O.U building from the Cycle Stand and after trapping into wire fencing fell down.
The accused persons have adduced evidences in their defense.
The shirt of witness, which he was wearing at the time of incident, was taken by the Police in their possession and a memo was prepared in this regard and the shirt was sealed in presence of this witness.
The eye witness Vipin Singh Negi PW 1 was also cross examined at length, on the issue of the identity of the accused persons.
Vipin Singh Negi lodged a written companyplaint of the incident at the Police Station, Dalanwala.
The prosecution case was further supported by the testimony of Rajeev Negi P.W.2 .
