Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 516 (HP)

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. JOGINDER SINGH

2010-03-17

SURINDER SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J.(Oral)-The respondents were acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 353, 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, passed in Crl. Case No.99-III/02 on 8th January, 2003. Their acquittal has been challenged by the State in this appeal. 2. In short, the prosecution case can be stated thus. On 27th September, 2002 around noon, the proceedings of Gram Panchayat, Bhhatech were going on with respect to disbursement of the grant to the Panchayat Members. Respondent No.1 Joginder Singh objected that no work was done in his ward and the Panchayat Members should give attention for the development work in his ward. When the Panchayat Members started proceeding towards the main hall of the Gram Panchayat, Ravinder Kumar, Up-Pradhan reached in verandah, respondent No.1 started saying that he was “Badmash”. Thereafter respondent No.1 slapped him. In the meantime, respondent No.2 also appeared and both of them fisticuffed him, thereafter they fled away. In this process, shirt of the Up-Pradhan was torn and he allegedly sustained some injuries. The matter was reported to the police and FIR Ext.PW-7/A was registered. 3. The police visited the spot, prepared the site plan of the place of incident, took into possession shirt Ext.P.1 of the complainant and got him medically examined. The police also took into possession the notification appointing him as Up-Pradhan and also obtained the copies of the proceedings of the Panchayat and presented the Challan, after investigation under the aforesaid Sections in the Court for trial. 4. The allegations were denied by the respondents put to them in response to the charge. 5. To prove its case the prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No evidence in defence was led by the respondents. At the end of the trial, they were acquitted. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. 7. The prosecution is under obligation to prove that the complainant being a public servant was deterred to perform his official duties. As already stated above, the allegation is that the complainant while discharging the duties of Up-Pradhan, disbursing the grants to other Members of the Panchayat, respondent No.1 had objected to it. Copies of the resolution placed on record do not corroborate this version. As already stated above, the allegation is that the complainant while discharging the duties of Up-Pradhan, disbursing the grants to other Members of the Panchayat, respondent No.1 had objected to it. Copies of the resolution placed on record do not corroborate this version. It is also not clear as to how the complainant was deterred to discharge the public/official functions, whereas records do not disclose this fact and all the proceedings of the Panchayat were completely closed after passing Resolution No.6. Rather on the foot of the resolution passed on 27th September, 2002 there is a note appended to it that there would be a special meeting on 5th October, 2002 but the purpose has not been indicated therein. On 5th October, 2002 the resolution was passed giving the reference of the previous date on which the meeting was convened, i.e., 27th September, 2002 when the respondents are alleged to have given beatings to the complainant. 8. In cross-examination the complainant (PW-2) categorically admitted that respondent No.1 had complained to the Panchayat Members that no grant was being utilized in his ward. If this objection offended the Up-Pradhan, then it cannot be said that he was deterred in discharge of his official duties and this should not have agitated him. There is a suggestion put to him but denied that it was the complainant who had given slap to respondent No.1 when he made his submissions. This fact is admitted by PW-6 Pradhan Dharam Chand. He further admitted that this caused scuffle between both of them. Had PW-2 not slapped, this would not have happened. This version of PW-6 has probablised the defence. 9. Further, it is also in evidence that many other persons were present, but other independent witnesses were neither associated by the Investigating Officer to find out the truth nor examined during the trial of the case. 10. Therefore, in my opinion, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court do not call for any interference, as such, there is no merit in the appeal, hence dismissed. 11. The respondents are discharged from the bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. 12. Records of the Court below be sent back forthwith.