Order
1. The correctness of the concurrent findings recorded in the impugned judgment dated 5-1-2010 Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 1982 on the charge against the appellant with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”, for short) is under challenge in this criminal appeal, urging various legal contentions.
2. The machinery of the criminal law was set into motion by filing of a first information report (Case Crime No. 412) by one Ramesh Chandra, informant/brother of the deceased, on 11-8-1980 registered with Police Station Jwalapur, District Saharanpur alleging that on 11-8-1980 in the evening at about 5.30 p.m., he along with his grandfather, Chauhal Singh, and his sister (since deceased) were in the fields. According to him, the deceased had gone to the adjoining corn field for cutting grass when her cries “to leave her alone” were heard. On hearing it, when the informant and his grandfather reached the spot they saw that both the accused persons were holding the deceased. The appellant-accused hit the neck of the deceased with daraanti. On seeing the informant and his grandfather approaching the spot, both the accused persons ran away.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant questioned the correctness of the concurrent findings recorded on the charge against the appellant-accused on various grounds, inter alia, contended that the concurrent findings on the charge are erroneous for non-examination of the witness, namely, Chauhal Singh, grandfather of the deceased. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2, though they are eyewitnesses, does not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the concurrent findings of fact are erroneous in law and liable to be set aside. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that both the courts below have committed an error in law in not examining the case in proper perspective after proper appreciation and reappreciation of evidence on record.
4. After hearing the aforesaid legal submissions, we have very carefully examined the correctness of the concurrent findings recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The Division Bench of the High Court has examined the prosecution and the defence case thoroughly after adverting to the rival legal contentions urged therein and after elaborately referring to the prosecution evidence has rightly arrived at the conclusion of guilt on the charge against the appellant recorded by the trial court based on the testimony of eyewitness, namely, PW 1. PW 2 is the person who had seen both the accused persons running away from the place of the occurrence after committing the offence.
5. At para 22 in the impugned judgment, the appellate court has elaborately adverted to the evidence of PW 1, informant, who is the eyewitness of the incident. He has very vividly narrated the occurrence stating that both the accused were holding his sister. Surendra Puri hit the neck of the deceased with daraanti. After his cross-examination, there is nothing to doubt his testimony. The finding recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court in this regard is correct. Further, referring to PW 2, who has corroborated the evidence of PW 1, in his evidence, has categorically stated that he saw both the accused running away from the spot and further stated that, at that time, Surendra had daraanti in his hand. In the cross-examination, nothing is elicited to doubt the veracity of his statement or with regard to his presence at the spot. More so, the FIR was lodged on the same day and the appellate court has examined the case of the appellant from various points of view, namely, that another accused is not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC but he is convicted under Section 354 IPC.
6. The examination of the father of the deceased, PW 3, has also been considered, who, in his evidence, has stated that Shiv Charan tried to molest the deceased on an earlier occasion as well. At that time, PW 3 reached the spot and had a scuffle with the accused Shiv Charan. Shiv Charan threatened to shoot him. The said evidence is corroborated by the brother of the deceased, PW 1.
7. The High Court after applying its mind has consciously reappreciated the evidence on record and concurred with the finding of guilt recorded by the trial court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. It has after examining the demeanour of the witnesses found that the trial court has rightly recorded the finding of guilt on the charge against the appellant-accused. In our considered opinion, the High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction has rightly reappreciated the evidence on record, examined the finding of fact of guilt on the charge and after giving elaborate reasons has concurred with the finding of guilt on the charge against the appellant-accused.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant made her best efforts to show us that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the High Court are erroneous in law. We are not impressed with the submissions made at the Bar to annul the concurrent findings of fact. We are of the view that the appellate court has passed a well-considered judgment after considering all the legal contentions urged before it. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the High Court are based on proper reappreciation of evidence on record, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
9. Resultantly, the appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. The criminal miscellaneous petition also stands dismissed.