Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 764 (PNJ)

Raj Singh v. State Of Haryana

2008-03-26

SHAM SUNDER

body2008
Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 12-6-1997, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Raj Singh, for the offences, punishable under Sections 332 and 353 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, under Section 332 IPC, and further sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of six months, for the offence, punishable under Section 353 IPC. Both the substantive sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. However, the accused was acquitted of the charge, framed against him, for the offence punishable under Section 333 IPC. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 29-11-1995, Shyam Lal, District Revenue Officer, Sonepat, PW-5, was distributing flood relief, to the villagers, in Village Chhapra, P. S. Baroda, whose houses had collapsed in the heavy rains, in the presence of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Lambardar and other respectable persons of the village. Raj Singh alias Raju made an attempt to snatch the cash, from the hands of Shyam Lal, District Revenue Officer, Sonepat, PW-5. When he resisted his attempts, to snatch the cash, Raj Singh @ Raju, accused, gave a punch at his nose, as a result whereof, it (nose) started bleeding. A portion of his upper teeth, was also broken. When Shyam Lal ran after him for catching hold of him, the Sarpanch and one Bishan helped the accused, to escape, after committing crime. It was further stated that the occurrence was witnessed by Piare Lal and Om Parkash, Officials, who were present with Shyam Lal, District Revenue Officer at the spot. On the basis of information given by Shyam Lal, District Revenue Officer, Sonepat, PW-5, FIR No. 132 dated 29-11-1995 was registered against the accused in Police Station Baroda. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Accused Raj Singh was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Session, charge under Sections 332, 333 and 353 IPC, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Session, charge under Sections 332, 333 and 353 IPC, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. L. C. Jindal, P. W.-1, Dr. S. S. Gupta, PW-2, Piara Lal, PW-3, a witness to the occurrence, Om Parkash, another witness to the occurrence, PW-4, Shyam Lal, District Revenue Officer, Sonepat, PW-5, and Om Parkash, Sub Inspector, PW-6. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C., was recorded, and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, produced no evidence, in his defence. 6. After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore. 7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the accused/appellant. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the ease, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, contended that since the accused was not earlier known to Shyam Lal, District Revenue Officer, Sonepat, PW-5, it was not possible for him, to identify him (accused) at the time of the alleged occurrence. He further contended that even Piare Lal, PW-3 and Om Parkash, PW-4, the other officials, who allegedly accompanied Shyam Lal, to the village, could not identify the accused. It was further contended by him, that no identification parade was held by the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, to pinpoint the identity of the accused, as the perpetrator of crime. He further contended that, in these circumstances, the prosecution miserably failed to establish the identity of the accused, as the perpetrator of crime, as a result whereof, he was not connected with the case, and was liable to be acquitted. He further contended that the trial Court was wrong, in recording conviction, and awarding sentence, to him. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. He further contended that the trial Court was wrong, in recording conviction, and awarding sentence, to him. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The occurrence, in this case, took place in the broad day light. Even the FIR, copy whereof is Ex. PF, on the basis of the information sent by Shyam Lal, District Revenue Officer, Sonepat, PW-5, was recorded at 3.20 p. m. on 29-11-1995. The factum that Shyam Lal, District Revenue Officer, Sonepat, PW-5, went to village Chhapra for the purpose of distribution of amount of re lief to the villages, whose houses had collapsed in the rainy season, was proved from his cogent and convincing evidence. Even Piare Lal and Om Parkash, PWs, supported this fact. Even, during the course of the cross examination of Shyam Lal, it was not disputed by the accused, that the said officer along with Piare Lal and Om Parkash, other officials, had not come to village Chhapra, on the day of occurrence, for the purpose of distribution of relief to the villagers, whose houses had collapsed in the rainy season. On the other hand, during the course of cross-examination, a suggestion was put to Shyam Lal, that he was giving less Compensation to the villagers, and, as such, they became angry with him and, under that anger, some villagers other than Raj Singh quarrelled with him, resulting into injuries, on his person. This suggestion was strongly denied by this witness. The trend of cross-examination of Shyam Lal, District Revenue Officer, Sonepat, PW-5, clearly revealed that his presence and the presence of other two officials Piare Lal and Om Parkash, at the time of occurrence, was almost admitted, in the village. Even, Piare Lal, PW-3, and Om Prakash, PW-4, the officials accompanying Shyam Lal to the village, on the relevant day, in clear-cut terms, stated that they had gone along with him to village Chhapra for the purpose of distribution of relief to the villagers, whose houses had collapsed. They, however, failed to identify the person, who caused injuries, on the person of Shyam Lal. So, there was no dispute with regard to the factum that Shyam Lal, accompanied by Piare Lal, PW-3 and Om Parkash, PW-4, went to village Chhapra, for the purpose of distrusting relief to the villagers, whose houses had collapsed in rainy season. They, however, failed to identify the person, who caused injuries, on the person of Shyam Lal. So, there was no dispute with regard to the factum that Shyam Lal, accompanied by Piare Lal, PW-3 and Om Parkash, PW-4, went to village Chhapra, for the purpose of distrusting relief to the villagers, whose houses had collapsed in rainy season. It was also proved from the evidence, on record, that there was a gathering, in the form of assembly, in which Shyam Lal and two other officials, aforementioned, were present for the aforesaid purpose. The trial Court was also right in holding that Shyam Lal, along with two other officials Piare Lal and PW-3 and Om Parkash, PW-4 was present, in village Chhapra for the purpose of distributing relief, to the villagers, whose houses had collapsed in rainy season. The reappraisal of the cogent, convincing and credit-worthy evidence of the witnesses, by this Court, also leads to the same conclusion. The findings of the trial Court, in this regard, are endorsed being correct. 10. The next question that arises for consideration is as to whether, it was Raj Singh @ Raju, accused, who caused injuries on the person of Shyam Lal, District Revenue Officer, Sonepat, PW-5 and deterred him in the discharge of his official duties, as a public servant. As stated above, the occurrence took place, during the broad day light. Under these circumstances, it was not at all impossible for Shyam Lal, District Revenue Officer, Sonepat, PW-5, to identify the assailant, who caused injuries, on his person. How could he forget the features of the person, who caused injuries on his person. An indelible impression, with regard to the features of the assailant, must have been imprinted, on the mind of Shyam Lal, District Revenue Officer, Sonepat, PW-5. No doubt, Shyam Lal, could not be expected to know the name of the accused, as he was not earlier known to him. Shyam Lal made a very forth-right statement, during the course of his cross examination, that he did not know the name of the accused Raj Singh at the time, he inflicted blow at his nose, and the villagers disclosed his name to him. He was also very straight-forward, in making the statement, during the course of his cross-examination, that he had seen Raj Singh @ Raju, accused, for the first time, when he gave fist blow at his nose. He was also very straight-forward, in making the statement, during the course of his cross-examination, that he had seen Raj Singh @ Raju, accused, for the first time, when he gave fist blow at his nose. Had he been untruthful, he would have concocted the story that being District Revenue Officer, he used to come to the village, in question, quite often, and as such, the accused came in contact with him, many times, and, therefore, he knew him by name, as also by his descriptive features. He, being a truthful witness, had not made such a statement and, on the other hand, deposed, as to what was seen by him, and happened with him, at the time of occurrence. The accused, being the perpetrator of crime was, therefore, duly identified by Shyam Lal, at the time of occurrence, when he caused injuries, on his person, as also in the Court. There was no reason, en the part of Shyam Lal, a responsible Officer of the Revenue Department, to name the accused, as his assailant, had he not caused injuries, on his person. He had no ill-will, grudge or enmity, against him, to depose falsely. In these circumstances, it could not be imagined, as to why he would have named the accused, as the perpetrator of crime, if he had not committed the same. The evidence of Shyam Lal, District Revenue Officer, Sonepat, PW-5, regarding the identification of the accused, as the perpetrator of crime, was rightly held to be cogent, convincing, reliable and creditworthy, by the trial Court. This Court endorses the finding of the trial Court, on this aspect of the matter, being correct. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, that the identity of the accused, as the perpetrator of crime, was not established, therefore, being devoid of merit stands rejected. 11. No doubt, Piare Lal, PW-3 and Om Parkash, PW-4, the other two officials, accompanying Shyam Lal, did not support him with regard to the establishment of the identity of the accused, as the perpetrator of crime. It appears that for some un-disclosed reasons, they made false statements, that they could not identify the accused, as the perpetrator of crime. It seems that they were won over by the accused and that was why they, came under his pressure, and failed to identify him, as the perpetrator of crime. It appears that for some un-disclosed reasons, they made false statements, that they could not identify the accused, as the perpetrator of crime. It seems that they were won over by the accused and that was why they, came under his pressure, and failed to identify him, as the perpetrator of crime. In Roop Singh v. State of Punjab 1996 (1) RCR 146, it was held that no adverse inference can be drawn, when the only independent witness, was won over, by the accused. It was further held, in the said authority, that the panch witnesses, being human beings, are quite exposed and vulnerable to human feelings of yielding, browbeating, threats and inducements and the possibility of their being won over, is fully justified, in the present day situation, prevailing in the society. In Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab 1983 Criminal Law Journal 1218 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court, held that where the independent witness, was won over by the accused, and only the officials were examined, as witnesses, for the prosecution, who were considered to be not interested persons, their evidence cannot be doubted, on the ground of their officials status. In the instant case, no doubt, Om Parkash and Piare Lal, prosecution witnesses, who accompanied Shyam Lal, to the place of occurrence, were not given up as won over by the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, must have thought that they being official witnesses having accompanied Shyam Lal, District Revenue Officer, Sonepat, PW-5 to village Chhapar in connection with the discharge of official duties, would support the statement of Shyam Lal, District Revenue Officer, with regard to the identity of the accused, who caused injuries on his (Shyam Lais) person. However, both these witnesses betrayed the faith of the prosecution. They supported the case of the prosecution, with regard to other aspects of the matter, yet failed to identify the accused, as the perpetrator of crime. As stated above, occurrence took place, during the broad-day light and, if Shyam Lal, District Revenue Officer, Sonepat, PW-5, could identify the accused, as the perpetrator of crime, then why could Piare Lal and Om Parkash could not, identify him, is a fact which remained a mystery. As stated above, occurrence took place, during the broad-day light and, if Shyam Lal, District Revenue Officer, Sonepat, PW-5, could identify the accused, as the perpetrator of crime, then why could Piare Lal and Om Parkash could not, identify him, is a fact which remained a mystery. A specific question, was put to both these witnesses, by the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, during the course of cross-examination, when he was permitted to put them such questions, as are put during the course of cross examination, that they had been won over, by the accused and that was why they had failed to identify him as the perpetrator of crime but they denied the same. The fact remains that both these witnesses were won over, by the accused, and that was why they refused to identify the accused, as the perpetrator of crime. Even if, their evidence, on this aspect of the matter, is excluded, as stated above, the evidence of Shyam Lal, PW-5, could be said to be sufficient to establish the identity of the accused, as the perpetrator of crime. The evidence of Piare Lal, PW-3 and Om Parkash, PW-4, on the aspect of identification of the accused, even if discarded, no dent is caused in the case of the prosecution. No help, therefore, could be drawn, by the accused from the fact that Piare Lal, PW-3 and Om Parkash, PW-4 could not identify him. The trial Court was also right, in holding that even if their evidence was discarded, the identity of the accused stood proved, as the perpetrator of crime, from the evidence of Shyam Lal. As such, the finding of the trial Court, is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and of law on the point. The reappraisal of the evidence of the prosecution, by this Court, also leads to the same conclusion. The findings of the trial Court, on this aspect of the matter is endorsed. 12. It was next contended by the Counsel for the appellant, that since there was gathering, in the village, in which the relief was being distributed by the District Revenue Officer, Shyam Lal, PW-5, to the villagers, whose houses had collapsed, in the rainy season, somebody from the crowed might have caused injuries, on his person, and the accused was wrongly named, as the perpetrator of crime. This submission of the Counsel for the appellant, does not appear to be correct. As stated above, the occurrence took place, in the broad-day light, when it was not impossible for Shyam Lal, PW-5, to identify the accused as the perpetrator of crime. It has also been held that the victim of crime could not, easily forget the descriptive features of the assailant. It has also been held that Shyam Lal, District Revenue Officer, PW-5, being very senior, in hierarchy, in the Revenue Department, at the district level, could not be expected to falsely name the accused, as the perpetrator of crime. The occurrence took place at 3.00 p. m., whereas the information to the Police was supplied at 3.20 p. m. when the DDR was recorded. Within the shortest possible time, the FIR was registered in this case. The name of the accused was mentioned in the FIR. There was, therefore, no time with Shyam Lal to concoct the story or falsely implicate the accused. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant that somebody else from the crowd might have caused injuries, on the person of Shyam Lal, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 13. Dr. S. S. Gupta, PW-2, medico legally examined Shyam Lal on 29-11-1995 and found the following injuries on his person- (1) An abrasion of size of 1.5cm x .25cm over the nasal bridge. There was no fresh bleeding. Area was tender on palpation. Advised x-ray for nasal bone and ENT opinion. (2) An abrasion of .5 x .25 cm on nasal bridge above injury No. 1. (3) Patient was complaining pain in the teeth in lower jaw (frontal teeth). No bleeding was present. Advised dental surgeon opinion. Dr. L.C. Jindal, Medical Officer, PW-1, examined Shyam Lal, District Revenue Officer, Shyam Lal, PW-5 on 4-11-1995, the condition of his teeth was as follows :- (1) Right lower central and lateral incisers were broken from the edges. (2) The margins of the broken teeth were sharp. (3) Contusion on the lower lip in the middle was present. (4) Other teeth were normal. (5) Orodental hygiene was good." 14. In his report, copy whereof is Ex. PF, Shyam Lal, PW-5 had stated that a portion of his upper jaw was broken when a punch was given by the accused. (3) Contusion on the lower lip in the middle was present. (4) Other teeth were normal. (5) Orodental hygiene was good." 14. In his report, copy whereof is Ex. PF, Shyam Lal, PW-5 had stated that a portion of his upper jaw was broken when a punch was given by the accused. When he appeared, in the Court, he, however, stated that a portion of his lower jaw was broken. He, thus, made an inconsistent statement, on this aspect of the matter, with his previous statement. Dr. L. C. Jindal, Medical Officer, PW-1, had found no injury on the upper teeth of Shyam Lal. He, however, found right lower central and lateral incisers of Shyam Lal broken from the edges. Since the evidence of Shyam Lal in the Court, with regard to the injury on his teeth was inconsistent, with his statement made, first in point of time, the trial Court, in my opinion, was right in coming to the conclusion that no offence punishable under Section 333 IPC was made out, as it was not proved, that grievous injury was caused by the accused. However, from the medical evidence, it was proved that simple injuries on the person of Shyam Lal, PW-5, were caused by the accused and he was deterred, in the discharge of his official duties, as a public servant. The ocular evidence of Shyam Lal, regarding causing of simple injuries, on his person, is duly corroborated, by the medical evidence. The trial Court was, thus, right in recording conviction and awarding sentence to the accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 332 IPC. 15. The Counsel for the appellant, also, in the alternative submitted that since the appellant has been facing the ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings since 1-12-1995, when he was arrested, his sentence be reduced or he be released on probation of good conduct. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not merit acceptance, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. In the instant case, the accused/appellant was so courageous, as he deterred the public servant, in the name of Shyam Lal, District Revenue Officer, PW-5, in the discharge of his official duties as also caused injuries, on his person, for no fault of his. In the instant case, the accused/appellant was so courageous, as he deterred the public servant, in the name of Shyam Lal, District Revenue Officer, PW-5, in the discharge of his official duties as also caused injuries, on his person, for no fault of his. If the people like the accused/appellant, continue attacking the public servants and obstructing them, in the discharge of their official duties, then they will not be able to perform their official duties, in a fearless, forthright and impartial manner. In that event, every public servant, would be fearful and would try to escape the responsibility, and discharge his duties, in a fearful manner. The persons, who deter the public servants, in the discharge of their official duties, and cause injuries on their person, cannot be dealt with leniently, but, on the other hand, serverity of sentence, can only prove as a deterrent for them not to repeat such acts, in future. In this view of the matter, no ground, whatsoever, is made out either for reduction of sentence awarded to the accused, or for releasing him, on probation of good conduct. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 16. No other point was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 17. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do not warrant any interference. The same are liable to be upheld. 18. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 12-6-1997, are upheld. The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, shall take necessary steps, to comply with the judgment of this Court, with due promptitude.