I. D. Dua C. J ( 1 ) IN this appeal which is directed against the order of a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 26th September, 1968. convicting the appellant for an offence under section 333. Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 100. 00 or in default to a further rigorous imprisonment for two months, after hearing the arguments and going through the record. I made short order on 7th November, 1968, acquitting the accused because I felt that no offence under section 333, I. P. O. , was made out. I would now proceed to give my detailed reasons therefor. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case. according to the order of the Court below, is that on 22nd September. 1967, Dharam Singh Constable was on duty at the main outer gate of Delhi Main Railway Station from 9. 00 A. M. to 12 noon. At about 10. 20 A. M. , he is stated to have given a signal to the traffic coming from the Koria Bridge to stop and he permitted the traffic coming from the side of the Railway Station to pass. A threewheeler scooter No. DLR 4523 coming from the side of Koria Bridge was accordingly also given a signal to stop. This scooter was driven by Sudhir Kumar, appellant in this Court. In utter disregard of the signal, Sudhir Kumar reached the sentinal post where Dharam Singh was standing. Accarding to the prospcution the scooter was going on an excessive speed. Dharam Singh again whistled to the appellant and signalled him to "top, but the appellant did not care for this signal. Apprehending the possibility of some accident. Dharam Singh Constable is stated to have got down from the sentinal point and to have attempted to stop the appellent who, instead of stopping, struck against him. As a result thereof, a wheel of the scooter is alleged to have run over Dharam Singh s left foot. Thereupon Dharam Singh extended his hand to stop the appellant from going further, but his hand got entangled in the scooter and he was dragged for about 10/15 yards thereby receiving injuries on his left foot, left elbow, right knee and other parts of the body. Thereupon Dharam Singh extended his hand to stop the appellant from going further, but his hand got entangled in the scooter and he was dragged for about 10/15 yards thereby receiving injuries on his left foot, left elbow, right knee and other parts of the body. The left foot, it is alleged, was a result, fractured, This incident is stated to have been witnessed by Abbey Ram, Constable Traffic. who was posted on the next point on the same road and by Chand Khan and Gulab Bhadur who are stated to have stopped the scooter and rescued Dharam Singh. The accused in his examination under section 342 Criminal Procedure Code, denied the prosecution version and stated that on the date of occurrence, he was proceeding from the Koria Bridge towards the outer gate of Delhi Main Railway Station at about 10. 16 A. M. with a passenger whose name he later learnt to be Mulkh Raj When he reached near the outer gate of Delhi Railway Station, Dharam Singh tried to stop a scooter going ahead of the appellant. That scooter crossed the stop line, with the result that Dharam Singh got down from the traffic point and went towards the footpath to stop that scooter, but in vain. As there was no police constable on the traffic point, the appellant slowly proceeded forward and also blew his horn. When the appellant reached the traffic point, Dharam Singh come back and struck against the appellant s scooter and also used offensive language towards the appellant saying that the scooter drivers adopt harassing attitude. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment does not seem to have correctly noticed the contents of the written statement filed by the appellant. Relying on the statements of Dharam Singh, Abbey Ram, Chand Khan and Gulab Bahadur, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as mentioned earlier. ( 3 ) ON appeal in this Court, as observed earlier, I was taken through the entire evidence on the record by the learned counsel for the parties and I must at the outset state that Shri V, D. Misra. the learned counsel for the State, after the entire record had been perused, very fairly expressed his inability in supporting the conviction. the learned counsel for the State, after the entire record had been perused, very fairly expressed his inability in supporting the conviction. This attitude is in accord with the high traditions of the bar, according to which the prosecuting counsel is not interested in securing conviction at all costs, but he has a duty to see that justice is done according to law. Turning now to the statement of Dharam Singh, the Traffic Constable concerned who appeared as P. W. 7, he has deposed that at about 10. 20 A. M. , while on duty at the main out-gate of Delhi Main Railway Station on 22nd September, 1967, he gave a signal to the traffic coming from the side of Kauria Bridge to stop and permitted the traffic from the station side to pass on. The scooter driven by the accused in violation of the direction, passed on at an excessive speed and reached the place where the witness was standing. The witness gave a whistle and also a signal with his hand for the accused to stop. Apprehending accident, the witness got down from the sentinal point and tried to stop the accused, but instead of stopping his scooter, the accused struck against the witness. He has admitted in cross-examination that at about 10 A. M. there is a heavy rush of traffic at the point in question due to arrival of a number of trains at Delhi Main Railway Station and indeed on the date of incident also, he had admitted that there was sufficient traffic. The signal was given by the witness when the accused was about 30 yards away from him and when the witness got down from the sentinal point, the scooter of the accused was about one foot from there. Now, if this be the state of affairs, it would require a very credulous mind to accept the version of this witness when he says that it was be- cause of apprehension of some accident that he got down from the sentinal point and extended his hand to stop the accused after his left foot was run over by the scooter of the accused, and that his hand was entangled in the scooter and he was dragged for about 10/12 yards unto the octroi post near the main gate of the town hall. When one tries to picture to oneself the scene described by this witness, one realises the unreality of it. The statement of this witness that the shirt of his uniform was also torn during this incident, merely serves to add to the unrealitgy making it look almost absurd. I do not mean to say that nothing happened at the time and place in question, but I am only concerned with seeing whether the the prosecution has established an offence under section 338, I P. C. against the accused in regard to the alleged occurrence which is the subject-matter of his trial. It is no less noteworthy that it was not Public Witness 7 Dharam Singh who challaned the accused but one Ramesh Chander Head Constable who did so and Dharm Singh has expressed his ignorance about the offence for which the accused was challened as a result of the alleged incident deposed to by him. The witness admitted that cases of violation of traffic rules had to be noted by constables on duty like him in their diaries, but unfortunately, I do not find that any case of violation of traffic rules on thebasis of the alleged occurrence in question has been initiated by this witness against the accused-appellant. That Dharam Singh is not a man who has much regard for truth would be obvious from the fact that in cross-examination, he first expressed complete ignorance about Gulab Bahadur and Chand Khan Public Witness s. who appeared in this case in support of the prosecution version, Irdeed,hewentto the. length of; saying that he had enquired about the names of Chand Khan and Gulab Bahadur at that time because they had rescued the witness from the scooter of the accused, though he did not care to note down their names and addresses in his diary. When the matter was pursued further by the counsel for the accused by questioning him about the parentage and residence of Chand Khan and Gulab Bahadur he was constrained to admit that he was a tenant of Gulab Bahadur in house No. 2814 for the last 8/9 years at are rental of Rs. 15. 67 np. per month. Gulab Bahadur also lived in the same house and the witness knew him previously. About Chand Khan. the witness persisted that be came to know him only at the spot on the day of occurrence. 15. 67 np. per month. Gulab Bahadur also lived in the same house and the witness knew him previously. About Chand Khan. the witness persisted that be came to know him only at the spot on the day of occurrence. He denied that Chand Khan was a neighbour of Gulab Bahadur which would,, in other words, mean a neighbour of the witness himself. It was specifically put by the counsel for the accused to this witness, though denied by him, that one scooter going ahead of the accused was being driven at a fast speed and that Dharam Singh tried to stop that scooter and got injured in this attempt. The witness denied that Chand Khan and Gulab Bahadur used to be associated by the police in raids and that they used to appear as prosecution witnesses. ( 4 ) CHAND Khan, who has appeared as Public Witness s 10, has also in his cross-examination denied on oath as incorrect the suggestion that Gulab Bahadur is the landlord of Dharam Singh, the injured and that the witness knows it. This witness had stated to the police that 0m Parkash was controlling the traffic at the next point at that time, but in Court, according to him. Abbey Singh was on duty at the next point. He was duly confronted with his statement to the police, the correctness of which he denied. ( 5 ) GULAB Bahadur appearing as Public Witness 11, has deposed that he noticed at about 10. 15 A. M on 21st or 22nd September, 1967 a three wheller scooter going at a fast speed and dragging a traffic constable with it. That scooter, according to him, was driven by Sudhir Kumar appellant. This witness noticed this incident when he reached "near octroi post in front of the 1st Class Gate of the Delhi Main Railway Station", to quote his exact words This witness has admitted in crossexamination that Dharam Singh was his tenant for the last about 10 years paying rent at about Rs. 17. 00 pm. This witness professes only to have seen the scooter for the first time from a distance of thirty feet when Dharam Singh Constable was being dragged for about 25 feet and was stopped by him and Chand Khan. 17. 00 pm. This witness professes only to have seen the scooter for the first time from a distance of thirty feet when Dharam Singh Constable was being dragged for about 25 feet and was stopped by him and Chand Khan. Dharam Singh, according to his version, was entangled with the scootor and was dragged for some time, though he could not see Dharam Singh s back side touch the ground when dragged. This witness and Chand Khan remained sitting near the octroi post after the alleged incident till thier statements were recorded at about 12. 30 P. M. According to him, the police had prepared a site plan in their presence, though according to Public Witness 7 Dharam Singh, no site plan was ever prepared at his pointing or instance. It is somewhat difficult to understand how any site plan could be prepared without Dharam Singh knowing it or pointing out the details for it? preparation. In this connection, it is also noteworthy that according to Abhey Singh Constable, Public Witness 9 the investigating officer had prepared a site plain in the presence of that witness, though not at his instance. Abhey Singh claims to be posted as Traffic Constable on September 22, 1967 in Police Station Kotwali and was at the time in question on duty at the in gate Railway Station Main Delhi. He saw the accused driving the scooter at an excessive speed and found Dharam Singh Constable being struck and dragged by the scooter. He along with two or three person including Gulab and Chand Khan stopped the scooter and rescued Dharam Singh who had received infuries as a result of its impact on his left foot and left elbow. Directing Chand Khan and Gulab Bahadur to keep a watch on the accused and to look after Dharm Singh, the witness went to the police station for ringing up the control room to get a police van. According to him, Chand Khan and Gulab Bahadur came running from Fatehpuri side shouting "policewala Mar Diya". It may be pointed out that Gulab Bahadur has in cross-examination denied that he or Chand Khan raised any alarm when they saw the police constable being dragged by the appellant s scooter. ( 6 ) OM Parkash Constable has appeared as Public Witness 6 and he has produced the duty register of the Traffic Constables pertaining to 22nd September, 1967. ( 6 ) OM Parkash Constable has appeared as Public Witness 6 and he has produced the duty register of the Traffic Constables pertaining to 22nd September, 1967. According to the relevant entry therein, Dharam Singh was posted at Point Main Outgate Railway Station, Delhi from 9 to 12 noon and from 6 P. M. to 9 P M. It is not clear whether or not Dharam Singh in fact attended to his duty from 6p. M. to 9 P. M. , though this register would seem to suggest that he did. In cross-examination, it was suggested to him that Dharam Singh Constable was not on duty on the said date as alleged but this was denied as also the suggestion that there were cutting marks on Exhibit P. E. , the relevant entry in the duty register, at Point b . I have myself looked at the duty register and I am far from impressed by its utility in the present case as it does not seem to have been maintained in a manner such official records should be maintained. ( 7 ) THE accused, as observed earlier, denied the prosecution version and according to the writtten statement filed by him. on the relevant date and time, Dharam Singh tried to stop the s:ooter going ahead of the accused by getting down from the traffic point and proceeded towards the footpath. That scooter did not stop and as there was no traffic constable at the traffic point the accused proceeded ahead and when he reached the traffic point, Dharam Singh came back from the footpath and struck against his scooter. The accused produced four witnessess in defence, including Mulkh Raj who, according to him. wastravelling in his scooter. Mulkh Raj D W, 1 and Arjan Dass, D. W. 2 have supported the version of the accused whereas Zafar Ali D. W. 3 has deposed that Chand Khan wanders with the police constables, Dharam Singh and Gulabbahadur and that he usually visits the police chowki. This evidence seems to have been produced to discredit Chand Khan and Gulab Bahadur. Jasvant Rai D. W. 4 has produced the site plan. This evidence seems to have been produced to discredit Chand Khan and Gulab Bahadur. Jasvant Rai D. W. 4 has produced the site plan. In this connection, it may be pointed out that the accused had applied to the trial Court for inspection of the spot on the ground that the site plan produced by the prosecution and the accused did not tally and an examination of the site would enable the Court to appreciate the evidence in the case. The learned trial Judge, however, did not consider it proper to inspect the site, though, in my opinion, it would have been helpful on the state of the evidence on the record to inspect the site so as to enable the trial Court to appreciate the statements of the various witnessess on the record. It would have served the interests of Justice better it the site had been inspected in this case. ( 8 ) THE statements of Dharam Singh and other prosecution witnesses, who have tried to support him, do not seem to me to establish an offence under section 333, Indian Penal Code against the accused-appellant. This section makes punishable voluntarily causing of grievous hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharing his duty as such, or in consequence of anything done or attempt to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant. Now the evidence on the record does not seem to me to establish that the appellant had voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Dharam Singh in the discharge of his duty as public servant. The version given by Dharam Singh is far from trustworthy and it appears to me to be full of embellishment and exaggeration. That he has little regard for truth is too obvious to be commented upon. The version given by Dharam Singh is far from trustworthy and it appears to me to be full of embellishment and exaggeration. That he has little regard for truth is too obvious to be commented upon. I am not unmindful of the fact that "false in one thing false in everything" is a maxim which is neither sound rule of law nor a rule of practiceand one scarcely comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or some exaggerations or embroiders and embellishments, but at the same time, when a witness tells falsehood on material particulars and also suppresses the truth in regard to those prosecution witnesses who are to appear in support of his case and, by a flagrant falsehood, tries to conceal their close acquaintance with him, the Court connot but look at such evidence with grave suspicion. I am aware of the notorious violations of traffic rules by a large number of vehicle drivers in Delhi, and more so by the scooter drivers, particularly those who ply the threewheeler scooters or other vehicles on hire. I am further alive to the enormous difficulties of the traffic police in dealing with habitual breakers of traffic regulations in the persons of scooter, drivers, particularly those who ply for hire, but I am also not unaware of the manner in which the traffic constables in Delhi at times behave while on duty in certain parts of the town. Instances are not unknown when these police constables, while on duty, but otherwise absorbed in other activities, would suddenly become alive to their traffic duty and give a signal to one side of the traffic, little realising that some vehicle from the other direction has almost reached the sentinal point. Keeping the habits and propensities, both of the traffic constables and the scooter drivers in view, the Court has to strive to get at the truth by appreciating the evidence on the record. My evaluation of the evidence on this record does not render it safe to rely on the testimony of the various prosecution witnesses. Keeping the habits and propensities, both of the traffic constables and the scooter drivers in view, the Court has to strive to get at the truth by appreciating the evidence on the record. My evaluation of the evidence on this record does not render it safe to rely on the testimony of the various prosecution witnesses. I need hardly express any considered opinion on the point whether or not, even believing the testimony of Dharam Singh and his supporters, any offence under section 333, I. P. C. can be held to he made out though prima facie I have my doubts about such an offence being capable of founded on this testimony. For the reasons best known to Dharam Singh, the accused-appellant is not being tried for violation of traffic rules, but for a farmore serious offence of wihch I find no justification on the existing record. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons foregoing, this appeal is allowed and the accused acquitted. ( 10 ) BEFORE finally closing, however, I cannot help pointing out that violation of traffic rules in Delhi is no rare sight and at times, even respectable educated persons, driving their own cars, are found violating traffic, regulations with impunity, if a police constable is not present at the spot. This merely betrays unawareness of civic sense on the part of even some high-placed educated citizens. Only if they were to realise that if everyone else were to behave like them, what utter confusion would result and with what dire, consequences It is, therefore, for the authorities to see how they can educate public opinion more effectively and to persuade the better-placed citizens to obey the traffic regulations for their own sake and set an example to the more ignorant and those belonging to comparatively humbler positions in life who may take pride in copying the behaviour of their better-placed compatriots.