caselaws
Supreme Court of India
Bijendra Bhagat vs State Of Uttarakhand on 29 May, 2015Author: ………………………..J.
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Uday Umesh Lalit
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2202 of 2011
Bijendra Bhagat …. Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand …. Respondent
O R D E R
1. The appellant and his two sons named Raman @ Babloo and Randhawa @
Billoo were tried for having caused the deaths of one Rakesh and Attar
Kali and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 302/34,
324/34 and 452 IPC.
2. According to the prosecution, on 21.10.1999 at about 6.30 pm there
was a quarrel between the children of PW2 Surat Singh and the appellant.
Thereafter in the intervening night of 21st and 22nd October, 1999, the
appellant armed with a lathi, accused Raman @ Babloo and Randhawa @ Billoo
both armed with Tabals (heavy sharp edged weapon) and country made pistols
came to the house of PW2 Surat Singh and dragged his son Rakesh from the
house and started assaulting. The inmates of the house, namely, PW1 Sanjay
Kumar, his father PW2 Surat Singh and mother Attar Kali came forward to
save said Rakesh. Rakesh suffered eight injuries out of which seven were
incised wounds and the eighth injury was caused by a fire arm. Attar Kali
received four injuries, all of them being incised wounds. PW1 Sanjay Kumar
received three injuries, two of them being lacerated wounds and the third
was an abrasion.
3. Accepting the case of the prosecution, the trial court convicted all
the accused under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer
imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, under Section 324/34
IPC to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and under
Section 452 IPC to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.
The conviction and sentence so recorded by the trial court was affirmed by
the High Court in appeal. The appellant and his sons Raman @ Babloo and
Randhawa @ Billoo preferred special leave petitions in this Court
challenging their conviction and sentence. This Court found no merit
insofar as the petitions preferred by Raman @ Babloo and Randhawa @ Billoo
are concerned and their petitions were dismissed on 16.08.2011. However,
insofar as the appellant is concerned, special leave to appeal was granted.
By subsequent order, considering the age of the appellant and the fact
that he had remained in jail for about three years, this Court released him
on bail. In this appeal arising thus, we have heard learned counsel and
gone through the record.
4. The prosecution witnesses are consistent in their version that Raman
@ Babloo and Randhawa @ Billoo were armed with Tabals with which the
injuries were inflicted upon Rakesh and Attar Kali. According to the
witnesses these two accused were also armed with country made pistols. The
injuries suffered by the deceased are incised wounds and one fire arm
injury. However, none of the injuries on the person of the deceased could
be attributed to the lathi which was supposedly in the hands of the
appellant. Undoubtedly, three injuries on the person of Sanjay Kumar could
be caused by a hard and blunt object. But having gone through the
testimony of the witnesses and the other material on record, the presence
of the appellant and his involvement in the incident clearly appears to be
doubtful. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to give the appellant
benefit of doubt. We, therefore, acquit him of all the charges and set
aside the judgment and order under appeal insofar as the appellant is
concerned. The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds are
discharged. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
………………………..J.
(A.K. Sikri)
………………………..J.
(Uday Umesh Lalit)
New Delhi,
May 29, 2015
———————–
4
Comments