Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 611 (HP)

Raj Kumar v. State of H. P.

2013-06-27

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2013
JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J. The petitioners have been convicted by the two courts below for offences under Sections 353 and 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter I.P.C.) for assaulting Constable Ranjot Singh. The learned trial Court on the evidence on record recorded a finding of guilt and punished each of the accused to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days each. Petitioners appealed. The learned appellate Court rejected the appeal after re-appreciation the entire evidence on record. The petitioners have now challenged this judgment in this revision. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General has taken a preliminary objection that in revision it is not open to this Court to re-appreciate evidence and to come to a different conclusion than that of the two courts below. The proposition as urged cannot be accepted in so wide terms as it is always open to the Court exercising revisional jurisdiction to correct any perversity either in the conclusion on facts or in the application of law. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.7.200 1 at around 12.05 p.m. the complainant Ranjot Singh informed Police Post, Baddi that while he was discharging his duties two persons (accused) assaulted him. At this, H.C. Sh. Ranjeet Singh along with constable Sh. Satnam and constable Sh. Vijay reached the spot and recorded the statement of the complainant (Ext. PW6/A) under Section 154 Cr.P.C. where he stated that he was discharging his duties in Police Post, Baddi. On the intervening night of 24th /25th July, 2001, he was on patrol duty at the ‘Gas Plant’. At around 11.45 p.m. two persons came out from Sabji Mandi market. The complainant asked them as to why they were roaming in the late hours of the night on which both of them started abusing the complainant and assaulted him. Constable Sh. Ranjot Singh and Constable Sh. Jagdish Chand both sustained injuries on their person. The accused were overpowered when they disclosed the names as Raj Kumar and Nirmal Singh. They were arrested and put up for trial for offences under Section 353, 332 and 34 I.P.C. . 4. The prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses to substantiate its allegations but the testimony of two witnesses PW5 Constable Sh. The accused were overpowered when they disclosed the names as Raj Kumar and Nirmal Singh. They were arrested and put up for trial for offences under Section 353, 332 and 34 I.P.C. . 4. The prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses to substantiate its allegations but the testimony of two witnesses PW5 Constable Sh. Jagdish Chand and PW10 Constable Sh. Ranjot Singh are very material. The learned Court, adverting to the statements of these witnesses holds that statement of PW10 Constable Sh. Ranjot Singh is clear description of the incident of what happened on that night. To similar effect is the statement of PW5 Constable Sh. Jagdish Chand. He stated that his finger was injured in the fight which ensued. The injuries on both the assaulted police officials were proved by PW4 Dr. C.L.Bhardwaj, who examined them and proved on record M.L.C. Ext. P4 and Ext.P5. Taking into consideration the evidence, the learned appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the learned trial Court. The judgment has been assailed before me on the ground that it is based on inadmissible evidence and conclusions not warranted by the facts on record; the witnesses are interested witnesses and their evidence has to be subjected to close scrutiny. 5. I have gone through the judgment of two courts below and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. On the aspect of appreciation of evidence, I find clear, consistent and cogent testimony of all the prosecution witnesses with respect to the factum of assault. On the question of acceptability of evidence of the injured and also the police witnesses, the law is now well settled. The evidence of injured witness cannot be rejected solely on the ground that he is an interested witness. There is nobody better to state about what happened than the injured person. On the other aspect that the testimony of police witnesses requires careful scrutiny, the law is well settled that it cannot be rejected solely for the reason that the witnesses were police witnesses. (See: Anil Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 2 SCC 589 , Pattu Lal Vs. State of Punjab (1996) 8 SCC 228 , Abdul Majid Vs. State of Gujrat (2003) 10 SCC 198, Balbir Singh Vs. State (1996) 11 SCC 139 , Girja Prasad Vs. State of H.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625 and Aher Raja Khima Vs. (See: Anil Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 2 SCC 589 , Pattu Lal Vs. State of Punjab (1996) 8 SCC 228 , Abdul Majid Vs. State of Gujrat (2003) 10 SCC 198, Balbir Singh Vs. State (1996) 11 SCC 139 , Girja Prasad Vs. State of H.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625 and Aher Raja Khima Vs. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 S.C. 217 .) 6.I have not been able to discern anything in the record which would indicate that inadmissible evidence has been admitted. In these circumstances I find no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. 7. On the question of sentencing, it was urged before me that a lenient view should be taken. This cannot be accepted as the assault on police official and injuring him while on duty is unacceptable. However, considering that the sentence is only for a period of three months, I direct that instead of sentence for imprisonment, each of the accused shall pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each in addition to what has already been ordered to be paid by the learned courts below. On realization of this fine, it shell be paid to each of theinjured Constable Sh.Ranjot Singh and Constable Sh. Jagdish Chand. Such fine be deposited in the learned trial Court within a period of two month from today failing which the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court shall revive which shall be dutifully executed.