Court : Uttaranchal
Alok Singh, J (Oral). 1. Appellant Heera Bahadur, by way of present appeal, is assailing the judgment and order dated 04.03.2011 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, NDPS Act, Haridwar in Special Sessions Trial No. 32 of 2010 whereby appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 18/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act) and was sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional imprisonment for one year and appellant Dhan Kumari, by way of present appeal, is assailing the judgment and order dated 04.03.2011 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, NDPS Act, Haridwar in Special Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2010 whereby she was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 18/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act) and was sen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Oral: Prafulla C. Pant, J. 1. This appeal, preferred u/s 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.02.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Sessions Trial No.16 of 2006, whereby the said Court has acquitted the accused/ respondent, Bhagwati Singh @ Bhagat Singh (present respondent), from the charge of offence punishable u/s 376(2)(g), 323, 452 IPC and one punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter will be referred as the SC and ST (PA) Act). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that P.W.1 Dhagi Devi used to live with her two children in village Chirpi, within the limits of village Panchayat Pipli, District Rudraprayag. Her age on the date of incident was 55 years. In the intervening night of 4/5.9.2004, accused Bhagwati Singh and one Surendra Singh (since absconding) entered in her ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Praffulla C. Pant, J. (Oral) This appeal, preferred under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC), is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2010, passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Champawat in Special Sessions Trial No. 17/2007, whereby the said Court has acquitted the accused/respondent Constable Sashi Shankar Rai of the charge of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and one punishable under Section 3(II) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that informant Darshan Prasad (PW1), a constable with Railway Protection Force (for short, RPF), at the time of alleged incident, was posted in Tanakpur, where he used to live with his family in a Government accommodation. Accused Sashi Shankar Rai, also a constable with RPF, was posted at the same station and he was living there in the neighbour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Praffulla C. Pant, J. (Oral) This appeal, preferred under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC), is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.10.2008/6.10.2008, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Ist FTC, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 126/2006, whereby the said Court has convicted the accused Anil Chhetri under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the trial court has directed that the convict would undergo further three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/appellant and learned Government Advocate for the State, and also perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Bhagirathi (deceased) was wife of accused Anil Chhetri (appellant). Relations between the two were strained, and the deceased was living in a rented accommodation in the neighbourhood of her parental house. The couple had an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Alok Singh, J. (Oral) 1. Present appellant, by way of present appeal, is assailing judgment and order dated 05.11.2011, passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 157 of 2010 whereby learned trial court has found the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and has sentenced him to serve rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for an offence punishable under Section 363 IPC; to serve rigorous imprisonment for five years for an offence punishable under Section 366 IPC; and to serve rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC with the stipulation that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are on 11.04.2010, PW1 father of the prosecutrix has lodged a report with the police stating therein that on the previous evening of 10.04.2010, he had gone for labour work while her wife had gone to vegetable market; appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. Mr. Sayed Nadeem, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has been directed by the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to provide legal assistance to the petitioner, who is a poor lady. 2. Sub-section (1) of Section 154 Cr.P.C. provides for lodging of first information report in respect of cognizable offence. Sub-section (3) of the said Section provides that any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an Officer in charge of a police station to record the information may send the substance of such information to the Superintendent of Police concerned. In case the first information report is not lodged or the Superintendent of Police concerned also ignores the request of the informant, then, in such a contingency, sub-section (3) to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. provides that any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 Cr.P.C., may order such an investigation, which any officer in charge is required to investigate. In case, the request for inst...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. Present criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Champawat, in Misc. Application No. 12 of 2012 in relation to a Special Trial under Section 18/20 NDPS Act arising from FIR No. 18 of 2012 State vs. Sunder Singh Bisht. 2. An application for release of motorcycle in favour of the registered owner of the vehicle was filed in the Court of Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, NDPS Act, Champawat, who was pleased to reject such an application. 3. A first information report bearing case crime no. 18/2012 was instituted against accused Sunder Singh in respect of offences punishable under Section 18/20 NDPS Act. The trial against accused Sunder Singh Bisht was in progress. The contraband was seized from accused Sunder Singh Bisht and not from the possession of present revisionist, who happens to be the registered owner of the motorcycle Pulsar UK 04 K 5519 and which motorcycle was being used by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. A complaint (Ext. Ka-1) was given to PS Kotwali, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar on 11.05.2002 by PW 1 Dhananjay Mishra regarding kidnapping and rape with his daughter Archana Mishra, aged 15 years. According to the complaint, on 07.05.2002, when he returned from his office at 7:00 p.m., he did not find his daughter in the house. He made an inquiry from his neighbours and his acquaintances. On 11.05.2002, co-villagers Ramesh and Chhotu informed the complainant that Archana was seen with Manjeet Singh alias Ankur, Dinesh and Pankaj on 07.05.2002, at 8:00 a.m., near Danpur. A report regarding kidnapping and abduction was therefore, lodged in PS Rudrapur on 11.05.2002 at 1:15 p.m. 2. Investigating Officer started investigation on the basis of said first information report. The victim was recovered on 19.05.2002 near railway station of Rudrapur. Accused Manjeet Singh was apprehended. The victim was medically examined whereupon doctor found that there was no external...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Alok Singh, J. 1. Petitioner, by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is assailing the order dated 14.10.2010 (Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 3 Chief General Manager (P) whereby petitioner was removed from service as well as order dated 09.03.2011 (Annexure no. 14 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 2 whereby appeal against the order dated 14.10.2010 was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that petitioner was working as Senior Engineer at Koteshwar Hydro Electric Project of THDC; an FIR was got registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 373, 376 IPC and under Section 6 of the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for brevity the Act) with police station Rishikesh, District Dehradun alleging that petitioner was found involved in obscene dance in room No. 107 of Hotel Uttaranchal, situated in Rishikesh, Dehradun and was arrested b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
B.S. Verma, J. (Oral) This Criminal Jail Appeal, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16-3-2009, passed by Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 88 of 2008, State Vs. Sarju, whereby the accused/appellant Sarju was convicted U/S 376 (2) (f) of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and imposed a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months R.I. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19-5-2008, complainant Amit Thapa S/o Bheem Bahadur, handed over a written report at P.S. Rishikesh to this effect that accused Sarju is residing in his house as a tenant from two months, whose wife had died about two years back and he has a son and a daughter (aged seven ) year. Accused Sarju often comes his house in drunken condition and used to beat his daughter and according to his daughter, the accused does misdeed with her. It was also mentioned in the written report that on 18-5-2008 at about 2 am in the night accuse...
Tag this Judgment!