Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Ravi Bedi And Another on 18 January, 2011
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Crl. Appeal No.1126-SBA of 2002 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Appeal No.1126-SBA of 2002
Date of Decision: 18 - 1 - 2011
State of Punjab .....Appellant
v.
Ravi Bedi and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: Mr.B.S.Sra, Addl.A.G., Punjab
for the appellant.
Mr.S.K.Chauhan, Advocate
for the respondents.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
State of Punjab has filed the present appeal being aggrieved against the acquittal of accused Ravi Bedi and Surinder Mohan Duggal. Both were tried in a case arising out of FIR No.36 dated 18.5.1994 registered at Police Station City Phagwara under Sections 332,353,186,380,506,354 IPC.
Ex.PW3/A, a written complaint was sent by Surjit Kaur, Clerk in the office of Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Phagwara. It was stated therein that on 18.5.1994 at 4.30 P.M., complainant Surjit Kaur along with Smt.Meera Devi, Clerk, Smt.Ravi Kanta, Clerk and Smt.Nasib Kaur, Peon in the office of Municipal Council were performing their duties. Shri Crl. Appeal No.1126-SBA of 2002 [2] Surinder Mohan Duggal and Ravi Bedi came in the office of Municipal Council. Complainant enquired about the work for which they had come to the office. Surinder Mohan Duggal stated that they had come to the Tax Branch as Superintendent of the Branch had not made correct report on the application submitted by him. Complainant told the accused-respondents that Shri Suri sits in the room opposite where Tax Branch is located or they can meet the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council. Grievance of the complainant is that accused were not satisfied and they indulged in unnecessary arguments. Verbal duel attracted Joginder Pal Suri, Superintendent and newly appointed Superintendent Narender Kumar. They also made an attempt to pacify the accused-respondents. It is stated that accused-respondents gave a threat to liquidate Joginder Pal Suri and both the accused-respondents had a scuffle with complainant Surjit Kaur and Nasib Kaur, Peon. The accused-respondents had torn the clothes of the witnesses and also abused. It is stated by the complainant that both accused Surinder Mohan Duggal and Ravi Bedi had caused obstruction in their official work, gave abuses and caused injuries to her and Nasib Kaur.
The above-said FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted.
The Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara charged the accused-respondents for offences under Sections 332, 353, 354,380,506,186 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
PW1 Dr.Narinder Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Phagwara on 18.5.1994 at 8.45 P.M. had conducted medical examination of Surjit Kaur and found the following injuries on her person:-
1) Multiple linear scratches over the anterior aspect of left forearm. Colour was red. Tenderness was present.Crl. Appeal No.1126-SBA of 2002 [3]
2) Multiple linear scratches over the anterior aspect of right forearm. Colour was red. Tenderness was present.
On the same day, Nasib Kaur was also medico legally examined by the said witness and following one injury was found on her person:-
1. Multiple linear scratches over the anterior aspect of left forearm. Tenderness was present and colour was red.
Surjit Kaur appeared as PW3 and reiterated as to what was stated in the FIR.
Joginder Pal Suri who was then posted as Superintendent at Municipal Council, Phagwara appeared as PW4. Pran Nath Patharia, then posted as Executive Officer at Municipal Council, Phagwara was examined as PW5 along with Narender Kumar as PW6.
Surinder Singh ASI being the Investigating Officer was examined as PW7.
Hans Raj, Meter Reader appeared as PW8.
Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the entire incriminating circumstances were put to them but they denied the same. In defence accused-appellant Surinder Mohan Duggal gave the following version:-
"I am President of Anti Corruption Crime Primpted Council. On the alleged day of occurrence, I was present in the office of P.N.Pathuria, EO, M.C. Phagwara in connection with building plans which I used to get sanctioned from the committee. I have been doing the job of site plan of the building for the last 36 years. On 13.5.94 Bhagwant Rai Clerk MC Office was apprehended, red handed while receipting Rs.500/- by the vigilance department. Feeling aggrieved Shri P.N.Pathuria EO, MC Phagwara called me in his office on 18.5.94 in Crl. Appeal No.1126-SBA of 2002 [4] connection with deposit of Tahbajari fees, when I entered in the office, Shri S.N.Duggal was also present in the said office. In the meantime, Bhagwant Rai s/o Ram Varan, Mohinder Pal Sharma and Joginder Paul Suri, Employees of M.C. Phagwara gave beatings to me as well as to Ravi Bedi when he was trying to save me. They caused injuries to us in connivance with Pawan Kumar, P.N.Pathuria, Ram Saroop Arora, Manohar Lal Kaura, Ashok Kumar Kaura and Manmohan Sharma. We were removed to Civil Hospital, Phagwara where we were medically examined. The employees of the committee due to fear have got registered the present case against us."
In defence, Dr.R.L.Bassan was examined as DW1. He had medico legally examined accused Ravi Bedi on 18.5.1994 and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. Reddish contusion 10 cm x 5 cm in the front of neck starting just above the claricla on the right side and 2 cm above the claricla on the left side going upward at the level of thyroid cartilage. The lesion was more on the right side. Neck was swollen. X-ray neck was advised and surgeon opinion was need it. Patient was semi conscious. Pulse was 100 P.M. and B.P. 125/80 mm.
On the same day at 5.15 P.M., Dr.R.L.Bassan DW1 also medico legally examined S.M. Duggal and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. Reddish bruise 4 cm x 1.5 cm on the left side of face lying obliquely 2 cm below and outer aspect left eye. It was painful and tender.
2. Linear bruise 4 cm x 0.2 cm lying horizontally on the outer aspect of right eye brow. It was painful and tender.
3. Linear scratch 2 cm horizontally placed in front of chest on the sternum. It was painful.
4. Complained of pain on the left sub chomdrial region. No Crl. Appeal No.1126-SBA of 2002 [5] external injury marks seen. Advised x-ray.
Subhash Chander, Senior Assistant from the office of Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar proved record of the complaint submitted by the accused.
DW3 Sukhwinder Singh, Criminal Ahlmad in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala proved certified copies of certain documents.
The trial Court for determination of the controversy formulated the following issues:-
i) Whether accused persons on 18.5.94 while entering into the office of Municipal Council, Phagwara have assaulted and caused hurt to Clerk Surjit Kaur and peon Naseeb Kaur to outrage their modesty and have threatened to kill them.
ii) Whether the accused persons have committed theft of the Municipal record and have obstructed public servant from discharge of their duties.
The trial Court held that the complainant has given improved version and Nasib Kaur has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Therefore, the Court was left with the evidence of a solitary witness Surjit Kaur PW3. The Court further held that in the Court Surjit Kaur PW3 stated that accused had slapped on the left back of the shoulder but no external mark of the injury was found. The trial Court further relied upon the statement of Nasib Kaur recorded on 18.5.1994 and statement of Joginder Pal Suri recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW7 Surinder Singh ASI stated that he had not gone to record the statements of Surjit Kaur and Nasib Kaur, even though he had received the MLR, was Crl. Appeal No.1126-SBA of 2002 [6] construed as one circumstance against the prosecution. The trial Court further held that Surjit Kaur and Nasib Kaur had not gone to the police station. No other employee had gone to the police station. These reasons were taken by the Court to cause acquittal of the accused. The Court further held that there were injuries, though simple, on the person of the accused but the same were not explained by the prosecution. These findings in itself do not justify acquittal of the accused. The view formulated by the trial Court cannot be held to be one view which is possible.
Thus this Court will test prosecution case on the touchstone of the probabilities.
While recording acquittal of the accused-respondents for offence under Section 380 IPC, the trial Court observed as under:-
"41. PW6 Nasib Kaur have testified that Ravi Bedi accused took away bill book from the office but she does not know whether it was taken away by the accused with him or not. In my opinion in presence of such a huge crowd of the employees of the Municipal Committee it was impossible for the accused persons to commit theft of the record of the Municipal Committee coupled with the fact that accused persons were injured seriously and they have been taken to Hospital immediately in the car of the Municipal Committee. Recovery of such record have not been effected by the police from the accused persons. So this fact makes case of the prosecution doubtful. Virtually no theft took place in the Municipal Committee. Actually this offence have been added by the prosecution witnesses just to make this case serious in nature. So reasonable doubt is created in the prosecution version. So it is held that accused persons have not committed theft of record of Municipal Committee and have not obstructed public servant from discharge of their official duties. So this point of determination is decided against the prosecution and in favour Crl. Appeal No.1126-SBA of 2002 [7] of the accused persons."
This finding of the trial Court is justifiable and acquittal of the accused- respondents for offence under Section 380 IPC is upheld.
The trial Court further held that a written complaint was required to be filed in the Court to take cognizance under Section 186 IPC. This view of the trial Court cannot be sustained, as offences could not be segregated. It has come in the evidence of Surjit Kaur PW3 that when accused reached in the office, they had a verbal duel with lady clerks working in the Municipal Council, due to which hot words and abuses were exchanged. It seems that occurrence was a sudden affair and on the spur of moment without any pre-mediation, accused had given slap blows to Surjit Kaur. Thus, the accused-respondents are guilty of causing simple hurt to a public servant which is an offence punishable under Section 332 IPC. It can be well assumed that when the accused quarreled with employees of the Municipal Council, the other employees may have reacted and caused injuries to the accused. Thus, acquittal of the accused for offence under Section 332 IPC is not justifiable.
As this Court has upheld the findings regarding acquittal of the accused-respondents under Section 380 IPC and the occurrence had ensued in a heat of the moment, it cannot be said that the accused-respondents intended to deter the public servants to attend their duties, no offence under Sections 353, 186 IPC is made out. The accused-respondents had not intended to outrage the modesty of the women, therefore, their acquittal under Section 354 IPC is also upheld.
This Court has recorded conviction of the accused-respondents for offence under Section 332 IPC and has upheld their acquittal on other Crl. Appeal No.1126-SBA of 2002 [8] counts. In the present case, the occurrence had taken place in May, 1994. More than a period of 16 years has elapsed. Accused-respondent Surinder Mohan Duggal was aged 50 years when the charge was framed against him. Counsel for the accused-respondents has stated that they have not committed any offence before or after the occurrence. Considering the age, antecedents and nature of offence, the accused-respondents are ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of ` 20,000/- each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala that during the period of probation they shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour. However, cost of litigation qua each accused-respondent is assessed at Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid to injured complainant Surjit Kaur. In case costs of litigation is not deposited, the benefit of probation shall not accrue to them. The costs shall be deposited by the accused- respondents in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) January 18, 2011. JUDGE RC