Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 298 (HP)

SURINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2013-04-11

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. ASSAILING the judgment dated 22.8.2005/23.8.2005, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., in Criminal Case No.166-II of 2001, titled as State of H.P. versus Surender Kumar and another, as affirmed by presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, (H.P.), vide judgment dated 10.8.2006, in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2005, titled as Surender Kumar and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh, the accused persons-petitioners filed the present revision petition under the provisions of Sections 397, 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. IN short, the case of the prosecution is that on 10.3.2001, complainant, Shri Prem Sagar (PW-1) lodged an F.I.R. No.65/2001 dated 10.3.2001 (Ex.PW6/B), against the accused persons at Police Station, Sadar, District Hamirpur, under the provisions of Section 353, 341, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the F.I.R., complainant (PW-1) posted as a Conductor, was driving bus No.HP-20-0669 from Ludhiana to Sarkaghat. The accused persons were also posted as Driver and Conductor of Bus No.HP-22-5195. Accused Sunil Kumar was posted as a Conductor on the said bus. Somewhere near Taunidevi Chowk, Hamirpur, an altercation took place over a minor issue between the drivers of the two buses. Both the accused persons not only abused the complainant but also physically assaulted him and the Driver. The matter was investigated by A.S.I. Gurdas Ram (PW-8). Police recorded statements of various prosecution witnesses and took on record documentary evidence. With the completion of investigation, Challan was presented in the Court for trial. The accused persons were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341 and 353 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 eight witnesses; statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. They pleaded their innocence and did not lead any evidence in defence. 4. 3. IN order to establish its case, beyond reasonable doubt, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses; statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. They pleaded their innocence and did not lead any evidence in defence. 4. APPRECIATING the evidence led by the prosecution, oral as well as documentary, the trial Court convicted all the accused persons of all the charged offences and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for offence punishable under Section 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. The sentence was to run concurrently. The judgment of conviction as affirmed by learned Appellate Court is not assailed by the petitioners at this point in time. However, it is strenuously argued that considering the long time gap; the fact that petitioners are still working as Conductor and Driver; have not made any progress in life; have families to support; have maintained good conduct throughout; this is their first offence; and have not violated any law thereafter, a lenient view be taken. 5. FOR all the aforesaid reasons, taking a holistic view of the matter, sentence of imprisonment for a period of six months in relation to offence punishable under Section 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is converted to payment of fine of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each. Petitioners, through their learned counsel, undertake to deposit the amount of fine within a period of two months from today. It is clarified that if the amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, no leniency would be shown and the sentence passed shall become operational and be served by the petitioners herein. In view of the aforesaid observations, present revision petitions stands disposed of, so also, the pending applications, if any.