Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 239 (HP)

HEM RAJ v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2013-04-04

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. - 1. THIS is a revision petition filed under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the accused persons, assailing the judgment dated 22.2.2006, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P., in Police Challan No.46-I/2003, titled as State of H.P. versus Hem Singh and others, wherein the accused persons stand convicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 353 and 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as affirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi vide judgment dated 21.12.2006, in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2006, titled as Hem Singh and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh. 2. IN short, the case of the prosecution is that on 18.3.2003 at about 4:30 p.m., HRTC bus bearing No.HP-34-A-1268 was being driven by Shri Surender Singh (not examined) from Kulu to Banjar. Complainant, Shri Hem Singh (PW-1) was posted as a Conductor in the vehicle at that time. Private bus bearing No.HP-34-0887 being driven by Sunil Dutt (accused No.2) was also proceeding towards Balichoki, which is in the same direction. When Shri Surender Singh tried to take over the private bus, he was not allowed. After both the vehicles covered some distance, the bus driven by Shri Surender Singh stopped at a place known as Dari. There, all the accused persons got down from the private bus, entered the bus driven by Shri Surender Singh and started giving beatings both to the complainant as also Shri Surender Singh. As a result of which both Shri Hem Singh and Shri Surender Singh sustained injuries. With the intervention of passengers, including Shri Hari Krishan Sharma (PW-2), Shri Pawan Kumar (PW-6) and Shri Karam Dutt (PW-9), the injured were saved from the clutches of the accused persons. The matter was reported to police. F.I.R. No.24/03 dated 18.3.2003 (Ex.PW1/C) under Sections 353, 332, 341, 323, 147, 506 and 353 IPC was registered at Police Station, Aut, District Mandi, against the accused persons. Investigation was conducted by Shri Karam Singh (PW-8). The injured were got examined from Dr. L.R. Bhatia (PW-5) and M.L.C. (Ex.PW5/A) was taken on record by the police. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after investigation, Challan was presented before the Court for trial. Investigation was conducted by Shri Karam Singh (PW-8). The injured were got examined from Dr. L.R. Bhatia (PW-5) and M.L.C. (Ex.PW5/A) was taken on record by the police. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after investigation, Challan was presented before the Court for trial. The accused persons were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 341, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. IN order to establish its case, beyond reasonable doubt, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses; statements of the accused persons were also recorded but no evidence in defence was led by them. 4. APPRECIATING the evidence, oral and documentary, the trial Court convicted all the accused persons of all the charged offences and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a Rs.500/- for period of one month and pay fine of offence punishable under Section 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offences punishable under Section 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; six months and a fine of Rs.1,500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the event of default, the accused persons were to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. The sentence was to run concurrently. The accused persons preferred an appeal and in terms of the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2006, the lower appellate Court, while maintaining the conviction on all counts, reduced the sentence from six months to three months in relation to offences punishable under Sections 341, 353, 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Resultantly, the accused persons were required to undergo sentence for a period of one month for having committed offence punishable under Section 341 and for a period of three months for having committed offences punishable under Sections 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition to that they were required to pay fine so awarded by the trial Court. 5. HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that the Courts below have correctly and completely appreciated the entire evidence produced by the prosecution. In addition to that they were required to pay fine so awarded by the trial Court. 5. HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that the Courts below have correctly and completely appreciated the entire evidence produced by the prosecution. I find no error apparent on the face of the record or any irregularity. The findings returned by the Courts below are based on sound principles of law and by no stretch of imagination can be said to be perverse. 6. IN my considered view, the presence of the complainant as also Shri Surinder Singh on the spot, who were posted as Conductor and Driver respectively in the vehicle in question, cannot be disputed. In any event, this fact stands proved from the testimony of Shri Chaman Lal, Deputy Divisional Manager, Nahan, District Sirmour (PW-4) as also Shri Jeevan Chand (PW-7). The fact that the complainant was got medically examined from Dr. L.R. Bhatia (PW-5) also stands fully established on record. M.L.C. report (Ex.PW5/A) reveals that injuries are simple in nature and on the face of complainant, Shri Hem Singh, there is abrasion on the bridge of the nose. Injuries have been caused with a blunt object. In order to establish the prosecution case with regard to conduct and guilt of all the accused persons, Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General has invited my attention to the testimony of Shri Hem Singh (PW-1). A careful scrutiny of his testimony only shows that he has been able to identify the presence of the accused persons on the spot. In no uncertain terms he has deposed that the accused persons entered the bus and assaulted both, him as also the Driver, Shri Surender Singh. This was without any cause and also not in defence. 7. MR. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioners has strongly urged that this witness has also stated that there were other persons, whom he could not identify, but had also given beatings to him. This, in my considered view, would in no manner make the prosecution case fatal or effectively dilute the otherwise unrebutted and unshaken testimony of Shri Hem Singh. 8. This, in my considered view, would in no manner make the prosecution case fatal or effectively dilute the otherwise unrebutted and unshaken testimony of Shri Hem Singh. 8. THAT apart, careful scrutiny of spot witnesses Shri Hari Krishan Sharma (PW-2) and Shri Pawan Kumar (PW-6) who were declared hostile during trial, would only reveal that they have to some extent corroborated the testimony of complainant (PW-1). They were declared hostile only on the ground that they could not identify the persons who assaulted the complainant. However, these witnesses categorically do not deny the fact that the accused persons were actually present on the spot at the time of occurrence of the crime. That apart, these witnesses also corroborate the testimony of PW-1 to the extent that the incident took place on the given time and place inside the bus. Mr. Palsra, points out that statement of PW-1 is shaky inasmuch as there is contradiction in his statement as also statement of PW-8. As per the version of PW-1, he went to Police Post, Balichoki to report the matter which fact stands denied by PW-8. This contradiction, in my considered view, is not material; does not go to the roots of the matter and cannot be said to be material in nature. The contradiction is not in relation to the actual occurrence of the incident. 9. THE Courts below have also correctly appreciated the fact that torn clothes i.e. shirt (Ex.P-1) was recovered by the police during trial. The fact that the accused committed the offences for which they were charged stands established beyond reasonable doubt. 10. THE lower appellate Court has rightly held that the drivers plying private vehicles, in utter disregard of law, drive their vehicles, causing grave danger to the passengers. In my considered view, they do not deserve any benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as is so pleaded by their learned counsel. In fact the Courts below have been lenient enough in awarding the sentence. Hence, in my considered view, prosecution has been able to fully establish its case, beyond reasonable doubt. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the findings returned by the Courts below. As such, the revision petition is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused persons are cancelled. The accused persons are directed to surrender to serve the sentence and the trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the findings returned by the Courts below. As such, the revision petition is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused persons are cancelled. The accused persons are directed to surrender to serve the sentence and the trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid observations, present revision petitions stands disposed of, so also, the pending application(s), if any.