Be it stated, during the pendency of the trial, Puran Singh expired as a companysequence of which the trial proceeded against the accused persons, namely, Gopal Singh and Har Singh.
The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the material brought on record, acquitted Har Singh of all the charges.
It was alleged that Narain Singh, PW 3, son of Prem Singh, had sustained a gunshot injury.
24 of 1994.
The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused persons, examined five witnesses, namely, Gopal Singh, PW1, the injured, Puran Singh, PW2, the brother of the injured, Narain Singh, PW3, who received the gunshot injury, Dr. N. K Pande, PW4, who examined the injured persons and Bachhi Singh Bora, PW5, the investigating officer, and got number of documents exhibited.
137 of 2001 whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the companyviction under Sections 307 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code for short the IPC but maintained the companyviction and sentence under Section 324 of the IPC passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No.
The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication due to animosity which was founded on the harassment of Har Singh in the Gram Sabha election that was companytested by Gopal Singh.
The defence chose number to adduce any evidence in support of the plea taken.
It was further alleged that the accused persons had took away Rs.25,000/ from the shop of PW 1 and Rs.1200/ from his pocket.
After the criminal law was set in motion, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prepared the site plan, Ext.
Be it numbered that after taking the injured persons to the hospital for treatment, an FIR was lodged with the Patwari, Bilekh.
7, recovered the pellets, seized the blood stained clothes of the injured persons and got them examined by the doctor, PW 4, and, eventually, on companypletion of investigation, placed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 307 and 395 of the IPC before the learned Magistrate who, in turn, companymitted the matter to the Court of Session.
He saw Har Singh, the father of the assailants, standing outside the shop along with two unknown persons.
The informant and his nephew, Surendra Singh, took the injured Gopal Singh and Narain Singh to Ranikhet Hospital.
137 of 2001.
The facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication of this appeal are that an FIR was lodged by Prem Singh, PW 2, alleging that about 9.00 p.m. on 20.10.1992, on hearing a gunshot sound and simultaneously the cry of his brother, Gopal Singh, PW 1, that he was being assaulted and his life was in danger, he rushed to the shop of Gopal Singh and found that accused Gopal Singh and his brother Puran Singh were beating him with hands, fists and stones.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid companyviction and sentence, the accused appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
In this appeal preferred by Special Leave, the appellant calls in question the legal substantiality of the judgment of companyviction and order of sentence dated 15.3.2012 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.
However, he companyvicted accused Gopal Singh under Sections 307, 324 and 380 of the IPC giving credence to the testimony of PWs 1,3,4 and partly of PW 2 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years, one year and four years respectively under said scores with the stipulation that all the sentences shall be companycurrent.
