Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2631 (HP)

Punnu Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2016-12-09

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Appellants herein are accused in a case registered against them in Police Station, Chamba vide FIR No. 333 of 2002, under Sections 353 and 333 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with the allegations that on 19.12.2002 around 3:30 P.M. at Chamba Bus Stand they in furtherance of their common intention assaulted and used criminal force to deter the complainant Krishan Chand (PW10), the then Adda In charge HRTC Region Chamba, a public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. They allegedly caused grievous hurt to said Shri Krishan Chand. 2. Learned Sessions Judge, Chamba has tried the appellants and convicted them under Section 353 and 333 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They all have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay Rs.5000/- each as fine under Section 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay Rs.10,000/- each as fine under section 333 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The legality and validity of the impugned judgment has been questioned on the grounds, inter-alia, that irrespective of no case for the commission of the alleged offence is made out against either of the convicts they have erroneously been convicted. The contradictions in the prosecution evidence which materially affects its case have been wrongly ignored. The testimony of PW2 Jaiwant Ram that the injury in the hand was caused to the complainant by convict Raj Kumar, whereas as per that of the complainant by convict Punnu Ram, however, such contradictions have not been taken into consideration in its right perspective. The contradictions in the statements of PW2 and complainant i.e. as per the version of PW2 convict Punnu Ram who had made the utterances that “BUS ADDA INCHARGE USKE JUTE KE BRABAR NAHI HAIN” whereas as per that of the complainant “YOU ARE EQUAL TO MY SHOE” have also not been considered by learned trial Judge. It has also been pointed out that the statement of PW2 Jaiwant Ram was not recorded on the day of occurrence rather on the next day. The testimony of PW12 Daulat Ram, the Investigating Officer, however, reveals that the statement of the said witness was recorded on the same day. It has also been pointed out that the statement of PW2 Jaiwant Ram was not recorded on the day of occurrence rather on the next day. The testimony of PW12 Daulat Ram, the Investigating Officer, however, reveals that the statement of the said witness was recorded on the same day. Therefore, this aspect of the prosecution case is also contradictory in nature. 4. According to PW2, he was conductor on duty with the bus enroute Chamba to Gagla, however, as per the version of PW10 the complainant it is one Bhupinder who was the conductor of the bus bound for Gagla from Chamba. As per the testimony of PW2 convict Punnu Ram, had caught hold the complainant from his shirt, however, the complainant has not said so while in the witness box as PW10. While as per the testimony of the complainant, the scuffle continued for about 5-6 minutes, whereas as per the version of PW2 for about ten minutes. According to PW1 Surinder Kumar he asked Shiv Kumar Conductor to inform the police, however, the complainant while in the witness box has stated that it is Surinder Kumar who was asked to do so. PW8 Dr. Vinod Sharma being a resident of Bharmour, the native place of PW10 was also interested witness. Therefore, according to the appellants/convicts his testimony could have not been relied upon. Being so, the findings are stated to be recorded on the basis of the evidence highly contradictory in nature and as such the impugned judgment has been sought to be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. Rajender Kishore Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anita Parmar, Advocate has argued that nothing of the sort as alleged by the prosecution happened on the spot. According to Mr. Sharma, convict Punnu Ram the Pradhan of Gram Pachayat at the relevant time simply asked the complainant Krishan Chand as to how the route of a bus bound to a particular place could have been changed like this. Neither the said accused nor his co-accused assaulted the complainant and it is rather the later who himself scuffled with them and also administered beatings to them. It has also been urged that the material prosecution witnesses are the employees of HRTC and as such, they being interested witnesses, their testimony could have not been relied upon. Neither the said accused nor his co-accused assaulted the complainant and it is rather the later who himself scuffled with them and also administered beatings to them. It has also been urged that the material prosecution witnesses are the employees of HRTC and as such, they being interested witnesses, their testimony could have not been relied upon. It is also pointed out that place of occurrence, the bus stand and the drivers-conductors working there in HRTC always present at a bus stand, how the convicts could have dared to assault the complainant or prevent him from discharging his duties as a public servant. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General while repelling the arguments addressed on behalf of the accused persons has pointed out from the evidence that the accused had consumed liquor and accused Punnu Ram being Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat at that time scolded the complainant for changing the route of the bus bound to Gagla and his co-accused joined hand to beat the complainant and prevent him from discharging his official duties. 7. Learned trial Judge while recording the findings of conviction against all the accused seems to have swayed with passion and has take into consideration the one side version of the episode. Learned trial Judge has not made any effort to find out from the evidence available on record the manner in which the incident sparked off. 8. Admittedly, the genesis of occurrence is change of route of the bus which initially was detailed for Sach from Chamba. Before the departure of the bus to Sach, the bus had to depart for Gagla, however, the bus detailed for Gagla was got struck-up somewhere and the complainant may have taken a decision to detail the bus bound for Sach to Gagla. In this bus the passengers who had to travel to Sach were already sitting. On announcement of change of its route the passengers who had to travel to Gagla had also boarded the same. Accused Punnu Ram and his co-accused had to travel to Gagla, therefore, they had also boarded the said bus. In this manner the passengers going to Sach and towards Gagla side seems to have boarded the same bus. On announcement of change of its route the passengers who had to travel to Gagla had also boarded the same. Accused Punnu Ram and his co-accused had to travel to Gagla, therefore, they had also boarded the said bus. In this manner the passengers going to Sach and towards Gagla side seems to have boarded the same bus. The complainant deployed at that time as Adda In charge seems to have intervened to see that the passengers of Sach side occupying the bus are made to alight there from. The incident as such had sparked off at the spur of moment. It can reasonably be believed that convict Punnu Ram being Pradhan of Gram Panchayat at that time and in public life may have questioned such type of working of HRTC functionaries. It is on this the occurrence seems to have taken place. 9. The medical evidence as has come on record by way of the testimony of PW8 Dr. Vinod Sharma that not only the complainant had received injuries on his person in the occurrence but injuries were also there on the nose left side and lip of accused Punnu Ram. This witness has even noticed swelling in left cheek of accused Raj Kumar. No injury, however, could be detected on the person of accused Surinder Kumar. The place of occurrence being bus stand which generally remained over crowded that too in the evening time because the incident had occurred 3:30 P.M. the accused would have not dared to assault the complainant none else but Adda In charge for the reasons that there was every likelihood of they being beaten up by the HRTC staff, drivers, conductors and for that matter the passengers also on their indulging in an activity of this nature. As already noticed, accused Punnu Ram being in public life may have put question mark on the working of the HRTC and others and this has enraged complainant Krishan Chand. The possibility of Krishan Chand and other staff members including the drivers/conductors present there being the assailants cannot be ruled out. 10. Cogent and reliable evidence as to which of the accused had inflicted the injuries on the person of the complainant is lacking on record. The possibility of Krishan Chand and other staff members including the drivers/conductors present there being the assailants cannot be ruled out. 10. Cogent and reliable evidence as to which of the accused had inflicted the injuries on the person of the complainant is lacking on record. On the other hand, the so called independent witness Jaiwant PW2 while in the witness box has stated that the injury in the hand of complainant was inflicted by accused Raj Kumar. However, as per own version of the complainant such injury inflicted to him by accused Punnu Ram. In view of such evidence, no liability can be fastened upon either of the accused qua causing such injury in the hand of the complainant. It cannot also be believed to be true that accused Punnu Ram made utterances that “BUS ADDA IN CHARGE USKE JUTE KE BRABAR NAHI HAIN” for the reasons that as per the own testimony of the complainant said accused had not made any such utterances but made utterances that “HE WAS EQUAL TO HIS SHOE”. Therefore, very foundation of the genesis pressed in service by the prosecution turns highly doubtful. Though the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW2 Jaiwant Ram is shown to have been recorded on the day of occurrence itself i.e. 19.12.2016 however, as per his version while in the witness box the same was recorded on the next day. Though it is not an important circumstance, however, such contradiction casts cloud qua the manner in which the investigation has been conducted in this case. Even there are contradictions as to who was the conductor deployed with the bus in question and the duration of the occurrence continued on the spot. The other contradictions pointed out by Mr. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate though are minor in nature, however, when the prosecution story not inspire confidence also falsify the prosecution case against the accused. 11. True it is, that all the three accused had consumed alcohol. However, as per the medical evidence they were not under the influence thereof. On this score also, it cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that being under the influence of alcohol they assaulted the complainant and prevented him from discharging his duties as a public servant. 12. True it is, that all the three accused had consumed alcohol. However, as per the medical evidence they were not under the influence thereof. On this score also, it cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that being under the influence of alcohol they assaulted the complainant and prevented him from discharging his duties as a public servant. 12. For all the reasons hereinabove, and also the inconsistencies and contradictions occurred in the prosecution evidence, no findings of conviction could have been recorded against the accused persons. The present rather is a case where the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The reappraisal of the evidence available on record reveals that on the basis thereof two views emerges on record and as per the settled legal principles in the criminal administration of justice the view favouring the convicts has to be accepted and the benefit of doubt given to them. This Court, therefore, finds the present a fit case where the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequently acquittal of the charges framed against each of them. 13. In view of the findings as recorded hereinabove, this appeal succeeds and the same is accordingly accepted. Consequently, the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside and the accused acquitted of the charge framed against each of them. The personal bonds executed by each of them shall stand cancelled and the surety bonds discharged. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.