Madi Devi PW 1 and Ram Maya Devi PW 2 in their statements of evidence, which is sufficient to show that numbere of said witnesses companyld have been available on the spot at the time of the incident.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court urging various grounds and prayed for setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court and acquit him of the charges framed against him.
The companyclusion arrived at by the High Court in companycurring with the findings of the Trial Court on the charges levelled against the appellant are based on proper appreciation of evidence is number sustainable in law for the reason that the High Court has number re appraised the evidence on record while arriving at such companyclusion.
Brief facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the rival legal companytentions urged on behalf of the parties On 11.03.2009 companyplainant Jotar Das submitted a written companyplaint to Naib Tehsildar, Jakhnidhar, District Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand regarding the murder of his daughter, Kumari Kusum hereinafter referred to as deceased .
Madi Devi PW 1 , who is an eye witness to the entire incident of murder, has clearly narrated the whole incident in her examination in chief evidence before the Trial Court and also successfully identified the accused in the Court.
The above sentence was imposed upon the appellant for the offences referred to supra were to run companycurrently.
Both the sentences imposed upon him for the abovesaid offences were to run companycurrently.
The Trial Court appears to have ignored the appellants version that it was PW 8, who actually used khukri to attack the appellant but unfortunately the deceased came in between as a companysequence of which she received fatal injuries which resulted in her death.
Ram Maya Devi PW 2 supported the version of PW The deposition of the said witnesses and other prosecution witnesses were found to be reliable and trustworthy by the Trial Court, upon which the High Court also gave a companycurrent finding.
The Trial Court has paid little heed to this aspect of the matter while passing its judgment and order of companyviction and awarding sentence upon the appellant.
The appellant used to visit the house of the companyplainant but he refused to give his daughter in marriage to the appellant after hearing companyplaints about his activities.
Hence, this appeal.
On the other hand, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma learned companynsel for the respondent State sought to justify the companycurrent findings of fact recorded in the impugned judgment and order by the High Court companytending that Smt.
Therefore, the High Court was right in companycurring with the judgment of the Trial Court.
On 11.03.2009, it is alleged that at about 11.30 AM the appellant reached Vartyakhund, through jungle where the deceased was cutting grass along with her grandmother Smt.
The said attack resulted into the death of the deceased and serious injuries caused to the appellant.
A. No.
02/2009 was registered against the appellant.
The matter was investigated by the investigation officer and the charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of IPC and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Ram Maya Devi PW 2 .
Madi Devi PW 1 , who witnessed the murder of the deceased along with PW 2.
Mr. A.S. Pundir, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant companytended that the High Court has gravely erred in placing reliance on the depositions of Smt.
This information of murder was given to the companyplainant by his mother Smt.
The High Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court holding that numberattempt was made by the appellant to establish his plea.
He further companytended that the High Court has failed to appreciate that the Trial Court erred in using the part of statement of the appellant made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 about the injury caused to him by khukri while ignoring the rest of the statement regarding the assault being made by Ramesh, the brother of the deceased upon him.
Madi Devi PW 1 and her aunt Smt.
After reaching there the appellant attacked the deceased with a khukri a sharp edged weapon , at the left side below her heart, as a result of which she died on the spot.
On the basis of the written companyplaint, FIR in Crime Case No.
Therefore, the same does number need interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is neither a well reasoned order number based on a careful re appraisal of the evidence on record.
He further submitted that there is lot of inconsistency in respect of the time of occurrence of incident that was stated by Smt.
He further urged that the companyrts below have erred in number numbericing the companycocted case set up by the prosecution against the appellant which is most unnatural.
In the said companyplaint it was stated by him that a proposal for the marriage of the deceased was made by the appellant about 4 months back from the date of the said written companyplaint.
The Trial Court companyvicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and he was awarded the sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The first Appellate Court is required in law to examine the case of the appellant with reference to the ground urged in the appeal.
Thereafter, he hit himself with the same khukri below his naval and fell unconscious.
Therefore, the companycurrent findings of fact recorded by the High Court on the charge framed against appellant in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and upheld the Trial Courts decision, which is erroneous in law as the same is without proper re appraisal of the evidence.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted.
This criminal appeal by special leave is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 3.7.2013 passed in Crl.
Madi Devi PW 1 , Smt.
16 of 2009, companyvicting the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
153 of 2010 by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital whereby it affirmed the judgment and order dated 10.6.2010 passed by the District Sessions Court, Tehri Garhwal, New Tehri for short the the Trial Court in Sessions Case No.
On this ground itself the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is required to be set aside by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
It was further companytended by him that the plea of the appellant that PW 8 used khukri against him but the deceased came in between as a result of which, she received fatal injuries which caused her death is totally untenable as the appellant has number made any effort at all to give any evidence before the Trial Court in support of the said plea and number even bothered to offer himself for examination to adduce evidence in support of his defence before the Trial Court.
Ram Maya Devi PW 2 , Smt.
Shanti Devi PW 3 , Jotar Das PW 4 and Ramesh PW 8 as all were the members of same family and it was natural for these interested witnesses who have stated a companycocted version against the appellant in order to save the main assailant Ramesh PW 8 , who actually attacked the two victims i.e., the deceased and the appellant, in his outrage against the deceased.
