Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tirlok Chand vs State Of Haryana on 25 November, 2010
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
CRA-S-1302-SB of 2002 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1302-SB of 2002
Date of decision: 25.11.2010
Tirlok Chand
........ Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Jainender Saini, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. G.S. Chahal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
JORA SINGH, J.
Tirlok Chand, preferred this appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction dated 16.8.2002 and order of sentence dated 19.8.2002, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, in Sessions Case No. 72 of 2000, arising out of FIR No. 572 dated 1.12.1999, registered under Sections 323/332/333/353/452/506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City, Hisar.
By the said judgment, he was convicted under Sections 333/367 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- under Section 333 IPC and also to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- under Section 367 IPC. In default of payment of fine, under both the offences, to further undergo Rigorous CRA-S-1302-SB of 2002 -2- Imprisonment for a period of one month. Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.
Co-accused Kuldeep, was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Against acquittal no appeal by the State.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Om Parkash -
complainant was serving as Sub Inspector, Food and Civil Supply, P.R. Center, Railway Road, Hisar. On 28.11.1999, at 3.00 p.m. as per orders of the Director, Food and Supplies Department, Haryana, he was distributing the ration cards. Tirlok Chand - appellant had also applied for issuance of licence for a ration depot in Mahabir Colony, Hisar but further proceedings were stayed as per order of DFSC, Hisar. Om Parkash, Sub Inspector was distributing ration cards relating to three sanctioned depots of Jaidev, Rishidev Sharma and Ashok Kumar. Tirlok Chand and Kuldeep had snatched ration cards from the complainant. Some of the ration cards were torn. Accused gave beatings to the complainant and was forcibly taken to the nearby house of accused Tirlok Chand. In the house, family members of Tirlok Chand were also present. Tirlok Chand and his family members enquired from the complainant as to why he had taken away the ration cards from Tirlok Chand and distributed the same to the general public. Family members of Tirlok Chand also gave fist blows to the complainant. Complainant was also slapped. Occurrence was witnessed by Jai Dev and Rattan Singh, depot holders. They tried to rescue the complainant but failed. In the meantime, a police jeep of Police Control Room, Hisar, came at the spot. Complainant was rescued from the clutches of the accused and got admitted in Civil Hospital, Hisar where he was medico-legally examined. In view of the statement of the complainant CRA-S-1302-SB of 2002 -3- dated 29.11.1999, formal FIR was recorded. Rough site plan with correct marginal notes was prepared. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.
Accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 333/367 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 14 witnesses and produced number of documents.
PW-1 Dr. R.P. Singhal, on 2.12.1999, had radiologically examined Om Parkash. Reduction of disc space between L-1 and L-2 was noticed. Ex. PA is the X-ray report.
PW-2 Dr. R.J. Bishnoi, on 28.11.1999, had medico-legally examined Om Parkash and found following injuries on his person:
1. A red contusion over whole of upper lip.
2. A red contusion on back in the dorso-limb region of size 3" x 2".
3. A red contusion of left frontal region on forehead size 1" x 1".
Injuries No.1 and 3 were declared simple in nature. Injury No.2 was kept under observation. Probable duration of injuries was within 6 hours caused with blunt weapon. Ex. PB is the correct carbon copy of the MLR.
PW-3 Subhash Chander, Draftsman, had prepared scaled site plan Ex. PE.
PW-4 Madan Lal, Clerk, Office of the DFSC, Hisar, brought the record and stated that Ex. PF to Ex. PF/4 are the correct carbon copies of the letters which were taken into police vide recovery memo CRA-S-1302-SB of 2002 -4- Ex. PF/5.
PW-5 M.S. Lathar, DFSC, stated that Om Parkash Manju, was serving as Sub Inspector, Food and Supply in the office of AFSO, Hisar.
PW-6 ASI Bhim Singh, stated that on 24.1.2000, Kuldeep accused had surrendered in this case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar. He was joined in the investigation of this case after getting permission from the Court and was arrested in this case.
PW-7 Constable Dayanand stated that on the day of occurrence he was on duty at PCR Van alongwith Constable Ram Lal and at about 8.30 p.m. they were present in the area of Shanti Nagar, Hisar, then received a V.T. message that one Inspector has been confined in one room in Mahabir Colony. He had gone to Mahabir Colony. Om Parkash was found confined in the house of Tirlok Chand. Door was opened by Tirlok Chand. Om Parkash was got released and admitted in Civil Hospital, Hisar.
PW-8 Partap Singh, Assistant Food and Supply Officer, stated that Om Parkash Manju was serving as Sub Inspector at Hisar. On 28.11.1999, he was on duty in Mahabir Colony, for distribution of ration cards. Ex. PH is the certificate. Om Parkash was deputed by him to distribute ration cards. On 15.12.1999, attested copy of the order Ex. PF/4, was handed over to police by him.
PW-9 Dr. J.S. Bhatia, stated that as per Bed Head Ticket of Om Parkash reduction of discs space between L1 and L2 was noticed.
PW-10 Inspector Hans Raj, stated that on receipt of statement Ex. PJ with endorsement Ex. PJ/1 he had recorded FIR Ex. PJ/2.
CRA-S-1302-SB of 2002 -5-
PW-11 DSP Rajesh Kumar, stated that after completion of investigation he had prepared report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
PW-12 Om Parkash-complainant reiterated his stand before the police as per his statement Ex. PJ and PK.
PW-13 Jai Dev is one of the eye-witness and has supported the version of Om Parkash.
PW-14 ASI Nar Singh had partly investigated the case. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of Tirlok Chand was that Om Parkash illegally retained the ration cards of the ration card holders which were collected by him. Objection was raised by ration card holders. Then Om Parkash misbehaved with him and public gave fist blows to Om Parkash and caused simple injuries but Om Parkash obtained false medical certificate from Civil Hospital, Hisar by misusing his official capacity. He had filed a private complaint qua the occurrence dated 28.11.1999. When the complainant came to know that he (Tirlok Chand) is going to file criminal complaint then got this false case registered. Om Parkash - complainant was not discharging his official duty at the time of alleged occurrence.
Opportunity was given to led defence but no defence evidence was led.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and from the perusal of the evidence available on the file, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.
CRA-S-1302-SB of 2002 -6-
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel and carefully gone through the evidence available on the file.
Learned defence counsel for the appellant argued that on the day of occurrence Om Parkash was not on official duty. Illegally he was distributing ration cards to the ration card holders which had been collected by the appellant. Objection was raised by the ration card holders then Om Parkash misbehaved with the general public. Public had caused simple injuries to Om Parkash. Appellant had shifted Om Parkash to the Civil Hospital, Hisar. Appellant had threatened Om Parkash to file criminal complaint against him then to save himself, Om Parkash got this false case registered. Injuries on the person of Om Parkash were found to be simple in nature. Grievous injury alleged to have been caused was possible by fall as per doctor and if the Court is of the opinion that appellant had caused injuries then lenient view be taken because appellant remained in custody for about 8 months and 9 days and the occurrence is of November, 1999. At that time appellant was 42 years old and is the first offender.
Learned State counsel argued that occurrence is an admitted fact. Allegation of the appellant is that Om Parkash was not performing official duty because 28.11.1999, was Sunday. Second allegation of the appellant is that simple injuries were caused by the general public but documentary evidence on file shows that Om Parkash was on official duty as per order of AFSO Partap Singh. Copy of order is Ex. PF/4. Three injuries were noticed on the person of Om Parkash and one injury was found to be grievous in nature. If Om Parkash was illegally retaining ration cards of ration card holders then CRA-S-1302-SB of 2002 -7- card holders should have filed complaint to the higher authority. There was no idea to cause injuries. In fact appellant had applied for the issuance of licence but proceedings were stayed. Appellant was the aggrieved person because he was not liking the distribution of ration cards to ration card holders. No suggestion to the doctor that injured was shifted to hospital by Tirlok Chand. Tirlok Chand when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. then did not state a word that he had shifted the injured to the nearest hospital.
First submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellant was that Om Parkash - complainant was not on official duty because the day of occurrence was Sunday but after going through the evidence on file, I am of the opinion that this submission of learned defence counsel for the appellant is not correct one. M.S. Lathar, while appearing as PW-5 stated that according to the record brought by him Om Parkash Manju, was posted as Sub Inspector, Food and Supply and was working in the office of AFSO, Hisar. PW-8 Partap Singh AFSO stated that on 28.11.1999, Om Parkash Manju, was directed to distribute the ration cards. Copy of the order is Ex. PF/4. Admittedly, there was a gazetted holiday on the day of occurrence but on the day of occurrence complainant was directed to distribute the ration cards. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. then stated that Om Parkash was distributing ration cards but ration cards were being distributed illegally. That means at the time of occurrence Om Parkash was distributing ration cards. Only dispute is whether he was rightly or wrongly distributing ration cards. No documentary proof on the file that AFSO Partap Singh, was not competent to depute SI Om Parkash on Sunday.
CRA-S-1302-SB of 2002 -8-
Next submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellant was that Om Parkash was distributing ration cards illegally. There was objection by the public then Om Parkash had misbehaved with the public. Public had given simple injuries, but nothing on the file that appellant was a depot holder. No suggestion to the witnesses as to how ration cards were collected by the appellant. In case appellant was the depot holder only then he can collect ration cards. When appellant was not the depot holder then question is how he had collected ration cards and if ration cards had been collected by the appellant then how those ration cards collected by the appellant came in possession of the complainant. So allegation regarding collection of ration cards by the appellant and distribution of ration cards illegally by the complainant is not correct one.
Next submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellant was that Om Parkash was distributing ration cards illegally then public had given injuries to Om Parkash. Appellant was inimical towards Jai Dev-PW. When appellant threatened to file private complaint qua the occurrence dated 28.11.1999, then complainant managed to get MLR and named the appellant but defence version seems to be not reasonable one. First of all nothing on the file that appellant was the depot holder and had collected ration cards. No person appeared in defence to state that appellant had collected ration cards. In case Om Parkash was wrongly returning ration cards then ration card holders after collecting ration cards from Om Parkash could easily hand over to the appellant. Some of the ration card holders could easily be produced in defence to state that their ration cards were wrongly returned by Om Parkash. Nothing on the file that appellant was CRA-S-1302-SB of 2002 -9- inimical towards Jai Dev. Jai Dev was the depot holder. Appellant was not the depot holder then no reason to collect ration cards. Jai Dev witnessed the occurrence. When he was not inimical towards the appellant then there was no idea to support Om Parkash. According to the defence version public had caused simple injuries but appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. then did not state a word as to who had caused injuries. No respectable person was produced in defence to state that such and such person had caused injures to Om Parkash. Not a word was stated that Om Parkash was shifted to hospital by the appellant. No question to the doctor that Om Parkash was brought to the hospital by the appellant. Defence version of the appellant was that when he threatened to file criminal complaint qua the occurrence dated 28.11.1999, then Om Parkash to save his skin managed to get MLR and named the appellant but as discussed earlier appellant had not collected ration cards because he was not the depot holder. No suggestion to any witness as to how the ration cards collected by the appellant came in the hands of the complainant. If complainant was wrongly returning ration cards then complaint could easily be sent to the higher authorities. By returning ration cards to the card holders there was no occasion for the public to cause injuries to Om Parkash because card holders are to get ration from the concerned depot. If the concerned depot holder was not issuing ration to the card holders then card holders had the grievance against the depot holder and can file complaint to the higher authorities. With the return of ration cards as per defence version there was no reason to cause injuries to Om Parkash. Only question is whether the injuries were caused by the appellant or the public. If the injuries were caused by the public and the CRA-S-1302-SB of 2002 -10- appellant had filed private complaint then copy of the complaint could easily be produced but no suggestion why copy of the complaint was not on the file. At the time of argument learned defence counsel for the appellant frankly admitted that complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed. So with the dismissal of the private complaint filed by the appellant defence version is not correct one. When Om Parkash had no enmity with the appellant then there was no idea to self-suffer or self- inflict the injuries simply to name the appellant. Police party came to know about the occurrence and came at the spot. Om Parkash was got released from the custody of the appellant. If general public had caused injuries to Om Parkash then why Om Parkash was kept confined illegally by the appellant in his house. No suggestion to any witness that police party did not appear at the spot and had not got released Om Parkash from the illegal custody of the appellant.
In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that when Om Parkash was distributing ration cards then appellant had caused injuries. Evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. Impugned judgment is to be set aside if the Court is of the opinion that judgment is perverse or evidence on file was not rightly scrutinized. No reason to differ with the trial Court. Impugned judgment on the point of conviction is upheld.
Occurrence is dated 28.11.1999 and at that time appellant was 42 years old. He is the first offender and has already undergone 8 months and 9 days out of the actual sentence. Appellant is to become hardcore criminal if again sent to jail to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. Ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken.
CRA-S-1302-SB of 2002 -11-
Appellant is directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone (8 months and 9 days) and also directed to deposit ` 10,000/- more as fine before the trial Court within two months.
For the reasons recorded above, appeal without merits is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence.
November 25, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE