Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Madhudas And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 May, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994CRILJ3595, 1994(3)WLC19, 1994(2)WLN119
Author: R.R. Yadav
Bench: R.R. Yadav
ORDER R.R. Yadav, J.
1. Brief facts giving rise to. the present revision petition are that PW 2 Vallabh Das, Head Master of Rajkiya Uchh Prathmik Vidhyalaya, Ghata, Tehsil Kelwadalodged a written F.I.R. at Police Station Kelwada on 14-9-1.977 stating therein that when he was teaching the students of VIIIth standard at about 1.30 P.M. accused petitioner No. 1 Madhudas and accused petitioner No. 2 his son Mithudas entered in the premises of the school and started to abuse him and other teachers of the school. Hearing the hue and cry made by the revisionist No. 1 and 2, he came out of his class room and asked from Madhudas as to why he is making hue and cry in the school premises. According to First Information Report, accsued revisionists No. 1 Madhudas in abusive language stated that Mohan Balia, who is student of Class Vth has beaten his daughter. The complaiant-Head Master asked from. Mohan Balia, student of Class Vth, as to why he had beaten the daughter of revisionist No. 1 Madhudas. During the course of inquiry by the Head Master, Mohan Balia, student of Class Vth, informed to him that he had gone to urinate after seeking permission from the teacher-Hem Singh (P.W. 1) out-side the boundary wall of the school where he was beaten by the accused revisionist No. 2 Mithu Das. Hearing the hue and cry made by the revisionists No. 1 and 2, all the teachers of the school collected and started to pacify accused petitioners No. 1 and 2 not to abuse the Head Master and other teachers in the school premises. Meantime, revisionist No. 3 Bhanwarlal came on the spot and all the accused persons abused, humaliated and beaten the Head Master and interfered in the discharge of his official duty.
2. On the aforesaid written information, a case was registered at Police Station Kelwada under Sections 332, and 353 and 506, I.P.C. and F.I.R. Ex. P. 2 was drawn.
3. Alter investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against three accused persons before the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Kumbhalgarh.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the Invstigating Officer, the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Kumbhalgarh faramed charges against the accused revisionists who pleaded not guilty.
5. In support of the case, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Hem Siagh, P.W. 2, Vallabh Das, P.W. 3, Laxmi Narain, P.W. 4 Sardar Singh, P.W. 5 Ekling Nath, P.W. 6 Manohar, P.W. 7 Umar Bahadur Khan, P.W. 8 Varda, P.W. 9 Abhay Singh, P.W. 10 Vijayendra Kumar, P.W. 11 Saroop and P.W. 12 Shiv Ram. The prosecution has also submitted documentary evidence Ex. P.1 to Ex. P.6 in support of prosecution story.
6. After trial, the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kumbhalgarh held on 1-6-1984 that the revisionists No. 1, 2 and 3 are guilty of offence under Section 332, I.P.C. and after giving fresh opportunity of hearing on question of sentence, convicted and sentenced each of the revisionists under Section 332, I.P.C. for 6 months R.I. and Rs. 300/- fine to each accused revisionists. In default of payment, each accused revisionists were ordered to undergo 2 months' R.I. In case fine is deposited, Rs. 500/- was directed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate to be paid to the complainant Head Master (P.W. 2) as compensation. It is also held by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate that the accused revisionists were in jail during trial, therefore, the period during which they were in jail during trial will be reduced from the substantive sentence.
7. Against their conviction and sentence dated 1-6-1984 passed by the lerned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Kumbhalgarh, the present revisionists preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajsamand. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajasamand dismissed the appeal of the revisionists No. 1, 2 and 3 on 6-5-1985.
8. The revisionists being aggrieved with their conviction and sentence passed by the courts below, preferred this revision petition before this Court under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists as well as the lerned Public Prosecutor.
10. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionists before me is that the complainant P.W. 2 Vallabh Das Head Master was not beaten and humiliated while he was on his official duty. Therefore, no offence under Section 332, I.P.C. is made out against the revisionists. Secondly, the witnesses believed by the courts below for recording the finding of guilt are not independent witnesses and lastly, the learned counsel for the revisionists argued that there are material contradictions in the statement of witnesses examined by the prosecution, which cannot be reconciled.
11. The learned Public Prosecutor refuted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the revisionists and submitted that both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of guilt against the revisionists, which is based on oral and documentary evidence on record. Therefore, the finding of guilt recorded by both the courts below should not be interfered in exercise of limited reyisional jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C.
12. I have given my thoughful consideration to the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties. In my opinion, before dealing with the contentions raised on behalf of the revisionists, it would be expedient to deal with the scope of Section 397/401 Cr. P.C.
13. In my humble opinion, the object of copnferring revisional jurisdiction to this Court under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C. is a kind of supervisory jurisdiction in order to prevent miscarriage of justice arising from the mis-conception of law or irregularity of procedure commited by the subordinate courts. The aforementioned two sections do not give unfetterd jurisdiction for roving and fishing reappraisal of evidence to see as to whether it is possible after reappraisal of evidence there lies some trace of possible error of law and fact.
14. In fact, revisional power of this Court under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C. does not confer any right to the litigant, but only conserve the power of this Court to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognised rules of criminal jurisprudence and the subordinate courts do not exceed their jurisdiction or abuse their powers vested in them under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
15. It is well to remember that although the power of this Court under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C. is very wide, yet nromally and ordinarily this power is to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice only in those cases where the judicial conscience of a criminal court is pricking.
16. Following are the instances where this Court may interfere with the findings recorded by the subordinate courts:-
(a) Where the allegations are patently absured;
(b) Where the allegations are inherently improbable;
(c) Where from1 the allegations and proof adduced before the subordinate courts, absolutely no case is made out against the accused revisionists;
(d) Where the Magistrate and subordinate appellate court exercised their discretion arbitrarily by relying on irrelevant and inadmissible evidence; and
(e) Where the complaint against the accused revisionists suffers from fundamental legal defects i.e. want of sanction etc.
17. It is true that the aforementioned norms are illustrative and not exhaustive.
18. In the instance case, for the sake of interference in the concurrent finding of guilt recorded by both the courts below, the revisionists have to satisfy me that out of the five norms enumerated above any one of them is attracted in their case. If the revisionists fails to satisfy that any of the norms enumerated above is not attracted in the present case, then this Court will refrain from interfering with the concurrent finding of guilt recorded by both the courts below.
19. In the present case, none of the norms formulated by me in the preceding paragraph is attracted. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the finding of guilt recorded by both the courts below against the accused revisionists does not require indulgence in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C.
20. A close scrutiny of the judgment given by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate and the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge leads towards an irresistible conclusion that the finding of guilt recorded against the present revisionists No. 1, 2 and 3 are based on an analytical discussion of oral and documentary evidence on record. Both the courts below have given cogent and convincing reasons to arrive at the conclusion that the revisionists No. 1, 2 and 3 entered in the school premises at about 1.30 P.M. on 14-9-1977 and had abused and beaten the Head Master, who is a Government servant while he was teaching the students of VIIIth standard. Both the courts below have recorded a categorical finding that after hearing hue and cry made by the accused revisionists No. 1 and 2, Head Master P.W.2 Vallabh Das came out from his class room and requested the accused revisionists No. 1 and 2 not to disturb the classes. But, instead of leaving the school premises, the accucsed revisionists No. 1 and 2 started to abuse the Head Master as well as other teachers in the play ground of the school where all the teachers of the school and Head Master assembled to pacify them, but instead of being pacified on the persuasion of the Head Master and the teachers of the School, the accused revisionists No. 1 grappled with the Head Master and threw him on the ground and the other two accused persons slapped him.
21. In Indian society, the teachers of primary school, high, school and university deserve all respects for their contribution in man making and future citizen making mission. From the time immemorial, the teachers used to command highest respect for their self-less service to the students, who are threshold of their career. The relationship of the teachers and students in India is taken to be quasi parental. Therefore, assuming for arguments sake that even if Mohan Balai, student of Class Vth, had beaten the dauaghter of accused revisionists No. 1, who was prosecuting her studies in IVth standard, even then accused persons had no justification to enter into the school premises and start abusing, humiliating and beating the Head Master. The revisionists cannot be allowed to take law in their own hands.
22. However, in my opinion, justice should not only be done, but it must appear to others that it is being done. Keeping in view the aforesaid golden principle evolved and settled by the courts of law, I would like to deal with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionists in seriatim.
23. The first submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that according to the statement of P.W. 3 Laxmi Narain, since the 'Mar Peet' has not taken place inside the school room, but it has taken place in the playground, therefore, it cannot be said that the revisionists interfered in the discharge of his official duty as a Head Master of the Government middle school. According to the learned counsel for the revisionists, ingredients under Section 332, I.P.C. could be attracted only if the Head Master would have been abused, humiliated and beaten in his class room.
24. The aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the revisionists is not acceptable to me.
25. It is undisputed that P.W. 2, Vallabh Das was Head Master on the day of. occurrence. , Therefore, the entire premises was within his possession and within his authority and if any one challenged his authority by abusing, humiliating and beating him, within the precinct and boundary wall of the middle school he will be held guilty for Interfering in discharge of official duty of the Head Master. It is also apparent from the statement of the witnesses P.W. 1 Hem Singh, P.W. 2 Vallabh Das and P.W. 3 Laxmi Narain that after hearing the abusive language and hue and cry made by the revisionists No. 1 and 2, the Head Master left the class room of VIIIth standard and made an effort to enqpire from the revisionists No. 2 and he also made an effort to pacify the accused revisionists No. 1 and 2 after making enquiiry from Mohan Balai, student of Class Vth, who is alleged to have beaten the daughter of revisionists No. 1 Madhudas. But instead of being pacified, the revisionists No. 1 and 2 were infuriated and both of them started to abuse not only the Head Master but also other teachers of the middle school, who made an attempt to pacify them. Meanwhile, revisionists No. 3 Bhanwarlal came on the spot and then, thereafter, all the three accused had beaten the Head Master in the playground.
26. In my considered opinion, the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the revisionists No. 1, 2 and 3 within the ambit of Section 332, I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt.
27. The second submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that out of 12 witnesses, P.W. 6 Manohar and P.W. 8 Varda had been declared hostile by the prosecution. Both the courts below have disbelieved P.W. 9 Abhay Singh and P.W. 10 Vijayendra Kumar, It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the revisionists that according to the finding recorded by the subordinate courts P.W. 11 Saroop and P.W. 12 Shiv Ram had not seen the occurrence, but they reached on the spot after the commission of occurrence was over. Therefore, according to him, the courts below have no authority to convict the revisionists on the deposition of P.W. 1 Hem Singh, P.W. 2 Vallabh Das and P.W. 3 Laxmi Narain.
28. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid argument But, I am constrained to observe that nowadays the public is not much interested to support the prosecution story due to fear of muscles men. In my considered opinion, the behaviour of the aforesaid witnesses was normal upto investigation stage, but became abnormal when the trial started. According to me, the aforesaid witnesses detracted from their earlier statement given to the Invstigating Officer under Section 161, Cr.P.C. obviously to help the accused revisionists. In fact, the potency of a witness is to be examined on his behavioural and psychological attitude In the present case, I have already discussed the behavioural attitude of P.W. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Now, I propose to discuss the psychological aspect of these witnesses. It is a truth that a human being had a social instinct to support a truth in order to maintain social order beneficial to all but social instinct is under subordination of instinct of self preservation. The instinct of self preservation is more important and powerful than the social instinct to support a truth. In the present case, I have reason to beleive that the aforesaid witnesses succumbed to the pressure exerted by the accused persons, which is to be depricated. I am of the opinion that in a criminal case, it is not the number of witnesses which count, but it is the quality of witnesses which counts. The statement given by the complianant P.W. 2 Vallabh Das is corroborated by two eye witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Hem Singh and P.W. 3 Laxmi Narain and nothing has been brought to my notice as to why the aforesaid witnesses are falsely implicating the present revisionists. Therefore, in my opinion, the statements of P.W. 1 Hem Singh, P.W. 2 Vallabh Das and P.W. 3 Laxmi Narain inspire confidence to believe the prosecution story and both the courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the revisionist after believing the statement of the aforesaid P.Ws.
29. The last submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionists before me is that there are material contradictions which cannot be reconciled. But, no material contradiction has been brought to my notice which may lead to discredit to the deposition made by P.W. 1 Hem Singh, P.W. 2 Vallabh Das and P.W. 3 Laxmi Narain. The minor contradictions placed before me are inconsequential in nature. The minor contradictions brought to my notice further strengthened my confidence to the deposition made by the aforesaid three witnesses as according to me, these contradictions ruled out the possibility that these witnesses were tuitored. In fact, there are difference in degree of perception because the degree of perceptualisation differs from man to man. Therefore, the same incidence can be narrated in different manner by different person. The truthfulness of these witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 Hem Singh, P.W. 2 Vallahb Das and P.W. 3 Laxmi Narain cannot be tested on the anvil of tape recorder. It can never be presumed that each and every witness should state the same thing as other has stated, which can be made possible only by mechanical process and cannot be made possible by human beings.
In view of the aforementioned discussion, the instant criminal revision lacks merit, therefore, it is dismissed and the judgment of both the Courts below are hereby maintained and affirmed.