Court : Uttaranchal
Alok Singh, J. 1. Since both the appeals are arising out of the same judgment and order dated 24.05.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Nainital thereby convicting the appellants, herein, for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, failing which to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment of one year each, therefore, both the appeals were taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that PW1 Geeta Arya along with Chandan Kumar were taking walk at about 09.00 p.m. and when both of them reached near the house of PW3 Mahesh Chandra Joshi, both the appellants came on Yamaha motorcycle and pushed Chandan Kumar from behind and thereafter, started beating Chandan Kumar. PW1 Geeta Arya and PW3 Mahesh Chandra Joshi tried to intervene and made an attempt to get released Chandan Kumar from the clutches of appellants, however, appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Barin Ghosh, C.J. Oral: 1. There is no scope of interference with the judgment under appeal and, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Reasons there-for are as follows:- 2. According to the case of the prosecution, the victim, a 17-year-old girl of the informant, was returning home from School at about 4:00 P.M. of 25thFebruary, 2004; she did not reach home. Searches were made, which yielded no result. The parents of the victim felt that the victim may turn up at the School to attend the examination that was scheduled to be held on 26thFebruary, 2004. They, accordingly, went to the School, but to their dismay the victim did not attend the School. In the circumstances, parents of the victim returned home. Having had returned home around 11:00 A.M. of 26thFebruary, 2004, they came to learn that the dead body of the victim has been located inside a nearby jungle. The informant, accordingly, went to gather, whether it is the dead body of the victim, or not and finding that it was the dead ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
B.S. Verma, J. (Oral) This appeal U/S 377 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C.) has been preferred by the State against the judgment and order dated 6-12-2003, passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in Sessions Trial No. 7/2003, State Vs. Nayan Singh, whereby the accused/respondent Nayan Singh has been acquitted of the charges U/Ss 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. According to prosecution story, on 19-1-2003 at about 2 p.m. accused/respondent Nayan Singh had kidnapped Km. Ishwari Bhatt from the lawful guardianship of her parents and carried her at different places and committed forcible rape upon her against her will. As per the prosecution case age of Km. Ishwari at the time of occurrence was 15 years. The learned trial court after considering the evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused and accordingly acquitted the accused vide impugned judgment and order. Feel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) 1. In the instant case, appellant No. 1 is the widow of Pradeep Singh Bhandari and appellant No. 2 is the son of Pradeep Singh Bhandari. Pradeep Singh Bhandari was the son of G.S. Bhandari. G.S. Bhandari predeceased his wife Smt. Durga Devi Bhandari. After the death of Smt. Durga Devi Bhandari, respondent No. 3, the daughter of G.S. Bhandari, purported to present a Will, allegedly executed by Smt. Durga Devi Bhandari, for registration before respondent No. 2, Sub-Registrar (Second), Haldwani. Respondent No. 2 has registered the said Will. Challenging the said registration, a writ petition was filed. In that, amongst others, it was contended that, in terms of the provisions of Section 169 of The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the subject Will was required to be registered by the Testator herself, inasmuch as, the Will dealt with bhumidhari right of the Testator. The learned Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, did not consider ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Oral: Alok Singh, J. 1. In the present revision, revisionist is assailing judgment and order dated 23.08.2005, whereby the Special Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh in criminal case no. 152 of 2005 was pleased to hold the accused-revisionist guilty for an offence punishable under Section 406 IPC and was pleased to sentence him to serve one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of `1000/-, failing which to undergo additional six months imprisonment and judgment and order dated 03.05.2006, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, whereby appeal filed by the accused-revisionist was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that revisionist-accused was a license holder of fare price shop in village Salla, District Pithoragarh. Since there was some dispute between Jagdish Singh and Keshar Singh, so the District Administration has decided to entrust the ration of village Salla to the revisionist-accused for the free distribution amongst the poor labours engaged i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Oral: Alok Singh, J. Revisionist / accused has knocked the door of this Court while invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 / 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment and order dated 04.03.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun dismissing the appeal preferred by revisionists against the judgment and order dated 17.01.2005 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun, whereby learned Magistrate has found revisionist nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 guilty for the offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 147 IPC and sentenced them to serve simple imprisonment for one month under Section 324 IPC and further sentenced them to pay Rs.500/- each under Section 147 and further sentenced them to pay Rs.500/- each under Section 323. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo one week additional imprisonment. Respondent no. 2 was convicted under Sections 148, 324 IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 148 IPC and to undergo one months simple imprisonmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Alok Singh, J. 1. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that since respondent no.3 Rajesh Rawat had already died, so appeal against him has already abated vide order dated 25.02.2008. 2. This is a State appeal against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2001 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital whereby he was pleased to acquit the respondents herein. 3. Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that on 11.03.1999 PW1 Ramesh Singh Chilwal was admitted for treatment in the Male Ward of Sobhan Singh Jeena Base Hospital, Haldwani under the police custody. Head Constable 62 AP Latafat Ali and Constable 280 AP Manoj Kumar were on security duty of PW1 Ramesh Singh Chilwal, who was lying on bed no.129 and his friend PW2 Jagdish Sharma was also sitting near his bed. Constable Manoj Kumar (PW4) was sitting on a stool placed between bed no. 123 and 129 while Head Constable Latafat Ali was sitting on bed no.124. At about 11 p.m, respondents no. 1 to 6 and 8 alongwith one ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Prafulla C. Pant, J. For the Applicants: Sandeep Kothari, Advocate. For the Respondent: V.S. Pal, A.G.A. 1. Heard. 2) ApplicantsBasant, Anil Joshi, and Sanni Joshi who are in jail in connection with Crime No. 27 of 2013, relating to offence punishable under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun, have sought their release on bail. 3) Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that gang chart annexed with the first information report discloses that only one case of murder shown to have been registered in which present applicants were not named. It is further pointed out that no charge sheet was filed in said case against accused (present applicants) within a period of ninety days. Consequently, they were directed to be released on bail in said case. 4) Learned counsel for the applicants argued that only because said case of murder pertains to the wife of an Advocate, to keep the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Barin Ghosh, C. J. Oral: 1. A First Information Report was lodged naming the respondents as accused for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. In course of investigation, victim was medically examined. The doctor, who medically examined the victim, ultimately, opined that the victim was about 19 years old and that no definite opinion about rape can be given. The doctor also recorded the fact that the vaginal smear report is not available. No effort was made to obtain the vaginal smear report and to produce the same before the court. Ramesh, Rajesh and Shiv Charan were charged for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Shiv Charan was charged additionally for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. By the judgment under appeal, each of the accused people has been exonerated. Hence, the present Government Appeal. 2. In course of tendering evidence, victim Ms. Arti deposed as PW1. Initially, sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Oral: Barin Ghosh, C.J. 1. Certain allegations were levelled against respondent no. 1, a U.P. State Government Employee, in respect whereof respondent no. 1 had written a letter. Subsequently, that letter was withdrawn. Soon thereafter, respondent no. 1 was charge-sheeted by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Respondent no. 1 denied the charge. Accordingly, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer purported to conclude the inquiry solely on the basis of that letter. No witness was examined by the Inquiry Officer and, even if examined, no opportunity of cross examining them was given to respondent no. 1. Accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed respondent no. 1 from service. On an approach made by respondent no. 1, the Public Services Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with back wages. The State of Uttar Pradesh filed the present writ petition. The same was admitted, but prayer for stay of th...
Tag this Judgment!