Himachal Pradesh High Court
Madan Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 May, 2016
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 82 of 2008.
Reserved on 11.5.2016.
Decided on: 20.5.2016.
.
Madan Singh ....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ... Respondent.
................................................................................................
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
rt Yes.
For the petitioner. : Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondent. : Mr. V.S.Chauhan, Addl. Advocate General
with Ms. Parul Negi, Dy. Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
This petition has been filed against the judgment passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Cri. Appeal No. 6-N/10 of 2004 dated 15.2.2008, whereby the learned Appellate Court has upheld the conviction of the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 332 IPC passed by learned JMIC, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur in Cr. Case No. 76/2 of 98. The case of the prosecution was that one Sh. Milkhi Ram, complainant, was posted as Range Officer, Kaffota Range in Forest Department during the year 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:24:23 :::HCHP 21988. On 18.3.1998 he along with Forest Guard Gurdit Singh and Block Officer, Prem Singh were on official tour from village Bhatrog to Sataun at around 9:00 a.m., when they saw that some .
persons were illegally extracting the limestone and indulging in illegal mining near Giri River, RF Janjli C-6. They also discovered that some people were loading lime stones in tractors and other were digging at the spot. The persons who were indulging in of illegal activities in RF Janjali C-6 ran away from the spot along with tractors when they saw the forest officials. However, two tractors and certain tools used for digging were left behind on rt the spot by these persons. In these circumstances, the complainant picked up the tools and brought the same near Giri River and prepared a list of the same as forest offence was being committed by these persons who had ran away from the spot. At about 11:45 a.m. accused Madan Singh along with Surinder Singh and Atma Ram and one more person came to the spot in a drunkard condition and started demanding the tools from the complainant. When he refused to give the tools, he was beaten up by the said persons, as a result of which he received injuries.
The complainant was rescued by the officials accompanying him and all of them ran to the Police Post Rajban to save themselves.
In the meanwhile, son of accused Atma Ram also followed the complainant and warned him with dire consequences in case he did not compromise. The uniform of the complainant was torn ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:24:23 :::HCHP 3 and the complainant at about 2:30 p.m., narrated the matter to the police, on the basis of which report No.11 was recorded in the relevant register and the same was sent to Police Station, .
Paonta Sahib, pursuant to which, FIR under Sections 353, 332 read with Section 34 IPC was lodged against the accused. The complainant was medically examined and was also subjected to medical examination. After the FIR was lodged, the spot was of visited by the investigating officer who also prepared the spot map. The torn uniform of the complainant was taken into possession and on 22.3.1998 accused Madan handed over one rt 'stick', one 'belcha' and one 'panji' to the police which he confessed was used in the commission of offence. Challan was presented under Sections 353,332 read with Section 34 IPC. In the meanwhile, accused Surinder Singh died and vide order dated 13.12.1999 proceedings were dropped against him.
Charge under Section 332 IPC was framed against accused Madan Singh and Atma Ram, who denied the same and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, accused Atma Ram also died on 12.5.2001 and proceedings against him were also dropped vide order dated 16.7.2001.
2. On the basis of material produced on record by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that it stood proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 18.3.1998 at about 11:45 a.m at place Bhatrog accused Madan Singh along ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:24:23 :::HCHP 4 with other two persons assaulted complainant, Milkhi Ram, and voluntarily caused simple injury to him knowing fully well that he was a public servant and was discharging his public duties and .
this act was committed by the accused with an intent to deter/prevent the complainant from discharging his duty, as a public servant who at the relevant time was collecting the tool used by some unknown offender in the commission of forest of offence in Reserve Forest Janjehli, C-6 and was preparing the list of tools, so that he could investigate the matter.
3. The learned Trial Court further held that it stood rt proved on record beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Madan Singh along with other two co-accused (who were no more) came together in an intoxicated condition and started quarreling with the complainant. The learned Trial Court concluded that common intention to commit the crime could be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Accordingly, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 332 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500 for offence punishable under Section 332 IPC.
4. The appeal filed against the said decision by the present petitioner was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 15.2.2008. The learned Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the complainant, Milkhi Ram, who was a ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:24:23 :::HCHP 5 public servant, was assaulted by accused Madan Singh along with other co-accused on the relevant date and time by causing simple injuries to him while he was discharging his official duties.
.
As per learned Appellate Court, all ingredients of offence punishable under Section 332 IPC stood established beyond any reasonable doubt against the accused and the learned Trial Court had rightly held the accused guilty of commission of the of offence punishable under Section 332 IPC. Thus, according to the learned Appellate Court the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court were sustainable on the basis of material on record rt and there was no legal basis to interfere with such findings of the learned Trial Court.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgments of learned Courts below, the accused has filed the present petition.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case.
7. Mr. Anil Chauhan learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the judgment passed by learned Courts below, whereby the petitioner had been convicted for offence punishable under Section 332 IPC were perverse and were not sustainable in the eyes of law. According to him, the prosecution had miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner was guilty of offence under Section 332 IPC. He further argued that both the learned Courts below had ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:24:23 :::HCHP 6 erred in relying upon the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution witnesses, especially in view of the fact that there was no independent witness, who substantiated the case of the .
prosecution. According to Mr. Chauhan, the learned Courts below had miserably failed in not appreciating that the prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses and their testimony required a very close scrutiny. He further argued that a close of scrutiny of the statements of the prosecution witnesses would demonstrate that there were major contradictions in the same which belied the story of the prosecution. According to him, the rt prosecution had miserably failed to prove that there was any common intent amongst the accused to commit the crime for which the present petitioner has been convicted. Therefore, on these bases, he has argued that the judgments passed by the learned Courts below were not sustainable in the eyes of law and the conviction of the petitioner was liable to be set aside.
8. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that a perusal of the judgments passed by both the Courts below will demonstrate that the findings returned by them were reasoned findings and were based on material on record produced by the prosecution. According to him, the prosecution has successfully established on record that the petitioner was guilty of offence punishable under Section 332 IPC and was rightly convicted by the learned Trial Court. He has ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:24:23 :::HCHP 7 further argued that the complainant is a public servant and he did not had any animosity with the accused. There was no occasion for the complainant to have had filed a false complaint .
against the accused. Further according to him, even the accused has not been able to put-forth any satisfying reason as to why the complainant would have falsely implicating him in any criminal case. Mr. Chauhan further contended that the testimony of of the prosecution witnesses was cogent, reliable, trustworthy and inspired confidence. He further submitted that the truthfulness of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses could rt not be shattered by the defence. He further argued that the non-
association of independent witnesses is not fatal and the prosecution can substantiate its case even in the absence of independent witnesses, in case the testimony of the prosecution witnesses inspires confidence. According to him, in the present case the testimony of the prosecution witnesses inspired confidence and there was no need to interfere with the well reasoned judgments passed by the learned Courts below.
9. Ext.PW9/B is the copy of the FIR which was registered on the basis of the rapat lodged by injured Milkhi Ram-PW5 at police post, Rajban. The defence has not been able to controvert the fact that the complainant was a public servant at the time of occurrence of the incident and this also stood established by his appointment order Ext.PW8/A and posting ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:24:23 :::HCHP 8 order Ext.PW8/B which were duly proved on record. Further complainant had deposed as PW5 and supported the version, as was reported in the daily diary, copy of which is Ext.PW9/A, in all .
material particulars. A perusal of his statement reveals that in the cross-examination no question has been put to him regarding the factum of his discharging official duty as a public servant at the time of occurrence of the event. His testimony could not be of shattered in the cross examination and the defence has also not imputed any motive to him for fastening a false case against the accused. In fact, the factum of the complainant having received rt injuries at the relevant time is not denied itself by the accused, as is evident from the manner in which the complainant had been cross examined. However, the intent of the accused was to make out a case that complainant received injuries as a result of scuffle with Jagju and Bhagwan Singh which had been denied by the complainant in his cross-examination. Prem Singh-PW6 and Gurdit Singh-PW7 have also fully corroborated the statement of the complainant. The prosecution has not been able to impinge the credibility of these two witnesses. There is hardly any material discrepancy in the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses which could warrant interference in the findings returned by the learned Courts below. The case of the prosecution is also corroborated by the statement of Daulat ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:24:23 :::HCHP 9 Ram-PW3 and the credibility of the said witness has also not been impinged by the defence.
10. The medical evidence on record also lends credence .
to the version of the prosecution. Dr. G.P. Dwivedi-PW10 has medically examined the complainant and has deposed that the injuries which were suffered by the complainant were simple in nature and the probable duration of the same was six hours. The of incident is of 18.3.1998 and the complainant was got medically examined on the same day itself. Amongst other things, the doctor had deposed that the injuries received by the complainant rt could have been received due to blow of 'Danda' also which in fact corroborates the version narrated by the complainant and other eye witnesses to the occurrence of the said incident.
11. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and after the perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Courts below, in my considered view, it cannot be said that the findings returned by the learned Courts below were either perverse or unsustainable in law. The prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that complainant who was a public servant was assaulted by the accused Madan Singh along with other co-accused while he was discharging his official duties as a public servant and as a result of the said assault, he received simple injuries. The prosecution was able to establish the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 332 IPC and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:24:23 :::HCHP 10 accordingly the petitioner has been rightly convicted for the said offence by the learned Trial Court. Further the learned Appellate Court has also correctly upheld the judgment of conviction and .
there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by either of the Courts below.
12. There is no infirmity with the judgments passed by the learned Courts below. It cannot be said that any material of particular has been overlooked either by the learned Trial Court or by the learned Appellate Court. There is no perversity in the findings arrived at by the learned Courts below. It is well settled rt law that the jurisdiction of High Court in revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon re-appreciation of evidence. The High Court in revision cannot in absence of error on a point of law, re-appreciate evidence and reverse a finding of law.
13. It is settled law that the object of the revisional jurisdiction was to confer power upon superior criminal Courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precaution or apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the one hand, or on the other hand in some undeserved hardship to individuals.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:24:23 :::HCHP 1114. Thus, it can be safely inferred that this Court has to exercise its revisional powers sparingly. Though, this Court is not required to act as a Court of appeal, however, at the same time .
it is the duty of the Court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. However, I do not find any manifest illegality with the judgments passed by the learned Courts below in the present case.
of
15. As already held above, there is no perversity in the judgments passed by the learned Courts below. These judgments have been passed by appreciating all the material on record and rt the judgments are neither cryptic nor it can be said that the conclusion arrived at are not borne out form the material placed on record by the prosecution. Thus, the revision sans merit and the same is dismissed.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 20th May, 2016.
(Guleria) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:24:23 :::HCHP