Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 839 (HP)

Prem Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2016-05-18

RAJIV SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This revision petition has been instituted against Judgment dated 26.11.2007 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Appeal no. 34-S/10 of 2005, whereby he has reduced the sentence of imprisonment for offence under Section 451 IPC from three months to one month while maintaining fine of Rs.200/- each and upheld the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- for offence under Section 323 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, and further to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each under Section 506 IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, as imposed by the learned trial Court. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that at about 1.30 PM on 27.7.2002, accused in furtherance of their common intention trespassed into the school campus during recess. They wrongfully restrained the complainant PW-1 Shri Ramesh Kumar and administered merciless beatings. Incident was witnessed by teachers of the school Shri Yashpal Sharma and Paras Ram Chauhan. Accused tried to enter the house of Puran Chand Gaitri. Report Ext. PW-1/A was made by the complainant on 29.7.2002 to the In Charge police post Sunni. A separate complaint was filed by the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School vide Ext. PW-4/A to In Charge, Police Post. FIR Ext. PW-5/A was registered. Complainant was medically examined. Investigation was completed and Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses to prove case against the accused. Accused were convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court under Sections 451, 323 and 506 IPC. However, the leaned Additional Sessions Judge, though upheld the conviction and sentence under Sections 451, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, however, he reduced the sentence of three months to one month under Section 451 IPC. 4. Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate, has prayed for setting aside the judgments of conviction. 5. Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, has supported the judgment dated 26.11.2007. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 7. 4. Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate, has prayed for setting aside the judgments of conviction. 5. Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, has supported the judgment dated 26.11.2007. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Shri Ramesh Kumar testified that he was a student of plus two in Government Senior Secondary School, Banoona. He was playing volleyball on 27.7.2002 during recess. Accused came to the school and gave him beatings. He was given beatings on his head and eyes by fist blows and slaps. He was thrown into the bushes. School teachers saved him. Accused have advanced threats to liquidate him. He filed report Ext. PW-1/A. 8. PW-2 Paras Ram Chauhan testified that on 27.7.2002 he was coming from Principal Room to Staff Room. He saw that Ramesh Kumar was being given beatings by the accused. Shri Yashpal, Lecturer was with him. He saved the complainant. He informed the Principal. Police took into possession T-shirt Ext. P2 vide memo Ext. PW-1/B. In his cross-examination, he categorically deposed that he saw Ramesh Kumar in the school campus. He denied the suggestion that the complainant was not beaten up by the accused. 9. PW-3 Yash Pal Sharma, has corroborated the statement of PW-2 Paras Ram Chauhan. He testified that he alongwith PW-2 Paras Ram Chauhan was coming from Principal’s room to Staff Room. Three boys were administering beatings to Ramesh Kumar. Accused have also advanced threats and abuses. Principal of the School was informed. He denied the suggestion that Ramesh Kumar was outside the school. 10. PW-4 Dev Raj Verma, testified that on 27.7.2002, a quarrel had taken place in the school. Ramesh Kumar was studying in plus two. He submitted application Ext. PW-4/A to the police. He also proved attendance register Ext. PA to PD. 11. PW-6 Bimla Devi testified that her shop was situate adjoining to the ground of Senior Secondary School, Banoona. On 27.7.2002 at about 1-1.30 PM, Ramesh was brought to her shop. He was bleeding. She did not know who had beaten him. She was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned APP. In her cross-examination, she deposed that the quarrel had taken place inside the school. Spot was visible from her shop. She had not seen the quarrel. 12. PW-7 ASI Anil Kumar testified that Ramesh Kumar has submitted complaint Ext. He was bleeding. She did not know who had beaten him. She was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned APP. In her cross-examination, she deposed that the quarrel had taken place inside the school. Spot was visible from her shop. She had not seen the quarrel. 12. PW-7 ASI Anil Kumar testified that Ramesh Kumar has submitted complaint Ext. PW-1/A, on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW-5/A was registered. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that report was filed after three days. 13. PW-8 Dr. A.K. Kapur, has clinically examined the complainant. He noticed following injuries on his body: “(1) Injury to the left eye with bluish ltd. (eye lid) conjunctival haemorrage reddish covering about 50% of visible cornea. (2) Injury to scalp size about 2 cm in diameter. (3) Abrasion injury Lt. chin about 1 cm diameter.” 14. It is evident from the appraisal of the statement of complainant Ramesh Kumar (PW-1) that he was playing volleyball during recess. Accused entered the school premises and gave beatings to him. He was saved by PW-2 Paras Ram Chauhan and PW-3 Yash Pal Sharma. They have informed the Principal. Principal has also lodged report Ext. PW-4/A. PW-4 Dev Raj Verma, has proved the attendance register Ext. PA to PD. This duly establishes from Ext. PA to PD that the presence of the complainant was marked on 27.7.2002 in the school. Tshirt of the complainant was taken into possession. Statements of PW-2 Paras Ram Chauhan and PW-3 Yash Pal Sharma, are duly corroborated by medical evidence. PW-2 Paras Ram Chauhan and PW-3 Yash Pal Sharma are independent witnesses. They have no animosity with the accused. Police ought to have taken prompt action on the report lodged vide Ext. PW-4/A. Complainant was constrained to file statement vide Ext. PW-1/A. Statements of PW-2 Paras Ram Chauhan and PW-3 Yash Pal are cogent and satisfactory. Quarrel has taken place inside the school. It is duly established that the accused have committed trespass into the school premises and administered beatings to the complainant and also criminally intimidated him by advancing threats to him. 15. Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate has vehemently argued that a lenient view may be taken. However, the learned Court below has already taken a lenient view. Thus, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgments of the Courts below. 16. 15. Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate has vehemently argued that a lenient view may be taken. However, the learned Court below has already taken a lenient view. Thus, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgments of the Courts below. 16. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.