Himachal Pradesh High Court
_______________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 26 April, 2016
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 175 of 2008 Reserved on: 25.04.2016 Date of judgment: 26 .04.2016 _______________________________________________ Jagroop Singh.
.
.....Petitioner .
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent.
_______________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
of 1 Whether approved for reporting? . _______________________________________________ For the Petitoner: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate rt For the respondent: Mr. Rajat Officer.
Chauhan, Law Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
The present revision petition is maintained by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction dated 3.4.2006, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., in case No.133-II of 2002 under Sections 324 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala vide judgment dated 4.8.2007, in criminal Appeal No. 15-P/X/2006, wherein accused was 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:10:27 :::HCHP 2sentenced to undergo sentence till the rising of the court for both the offences and fine of Rs.2000/- and Rs.1000/-
respectively.
2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the .
present Revision are that on 9.9.2001, PW-2 Shri Rattan Chand, complainant, had taken his cattle for grazing to the forest at 4.45 PM. After tethering his cattle, he went to the nearby house of Shri Kalyan Chand for taking water. After of taking water, he had been going towards his house and saw that accused was using foul language and quarreling rt with PW-8 Lajya Devi. He had asked the accused not to use the foul language and then he proceeded ahead. When he was near the house of Piar Chand, the accused had picked up one stick and inflicted one blow on his head and blood started oozing from his head and had been compelled to sit in the varandah of Shri Piar Chand. After sometime, he had proceeded ahead. The accused was stated to have visited the courtyard of PW-4 Kalyan Chand.
PW-4 had asked the accused not to use his path, on this, the accused also assaulted PW-4 with a sickle. PW-4 had snatched the sickle from the accused . PW-2 and PW-4 had ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:10:27 :::HCHP 3 reported the matter to the Gram Panchayat and thereafter the reported the matter to Police Post, Bhawarna on 10.9.2001 at 9 AM. The police got conducted the medical examination of injured and after receipt of report of .
Medical Officer, police registered the case against the accused for the commission of offence under Sections 324 and 323 of IPC vide FIR Ex.PW-9/B. PW-10 SI Rumal Singh, Incharge Police Post, Bhawarna looked in the of compliant of PW 2 and PW-4 against the accused. PW-10 taken into possession stick Ex.P-1 and Sickle Ex.P-2 vide recovery rt memo, Ex.PW-2/B. After completion of investigation, SHO Palampur, prepared final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C against the accused.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the findings of the Courts below are against law and are required to be set aside. On the other hand, learned Law Officer appearing for State has argued that the findings of the Courts below are as per law and no interference is called for. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Law Officer, I have gone through the record in detail.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:10:27 :::HCHP 44. PW-2 Shri Rattan Chand, PW-4 Shri Kalyan Chand, PW-5 Smt. Soma Devi, PW-6 Smt.Rattani Devi and PW-8 Smt. Lajya Devi, clearly proved that on 9.9.2001 at about 4.45PM, the accused had caused one injury with .
sharp edged person to PW-2 and one injury with blunt weapon to PW-4. After grazing his cattle, PW-2 had returned to his village and after tethering his cattle, PW-2 had been on way to his house, then he noticed that of accused engaged in a quarrel with PW-8 Lajya Devi.
Accused had been using foul language against PW-8.
rt When PW-2 had asked the accused not to use foul language against a woman and after that PW-2 started proceeding ahead then accused picked up a stick (Ex.P-1) and had caused one injury on the head of PW-2. The injury had started bleeding then he was compelled to sit in the verandah of Shri Piar Chand. The accused then entered in the courtyard of PW-4 Shri Kalyan Chand and Kalyan Chand asked the accused not to use his path. On this, accused had assaulted PW-4 with sickle. PW-4 had also seen accused causing injury to PW-2. The evidence is supported by PW-5 Soma Devi, PW-6 Rattani Devi and PW-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:10:27 :::HCHP 58 Lajya Devi.
5. PW-3 Sh. Uttam Chand had stated that he was Ex-Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. PW-2 and PW-4 had reported the matter against the accused to him in the .
evening of 9.9.2001. PW-3 had not been able to settle the dispute and had directed the complainant to report the matter to the police. In the presence of PW-3, Shri Kalyan Chand (PW-4) had produced stick, Ex.P-1, and sickle, of Ex.P-2, before the police vide recovery Memo, Ex.PW-2/B. PW-7, Shri Bishan Dass had stated that he was Pradhan of rt Gram Panchayat in the year 2001. The matter had been reported to PW-7. No reconciliation was possible. Hence, PW-7, had directed the complainant to take further legal action. In his cross-examination, PW-7 had stated that the accused persons had filed the complaint Ex.D-1, before him on 9.9.2001. As per this complaint, PW-2,PW-4, PW-5, PE-6 and PW-8, had caused hurt to DW-3. PW-10, Shri Rumal Singh SI had investigated the case against the accused vide FIR Ex.PW-9/B. PW-9 HC Roshan Lal had registered report Ex.PW-2/A, and had forwarded the same to the Police Station for registration of FIR. PW-11 HC ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:10:27 :::HCHP 6 Ramesh Chand had arrested the accused persons and had released him on bail.
6. PW-1 Dr. Vijay Kumar Sood had medically examined PW-2 and PW-4 on 10.9.2001 and opined the .
following injuries on the person of PW-2.
1. A lacerated wound 1 x 6 cm in size epidermal deep reddish brown in colour in right parietal region of scalp.
2. A clean lacerated wound ½ x 1 cm in size of epidermal deep in right thumb palmer surface.
7. rtDr. Vijay Kumar Sood has specifically opined that the injuries on the person of Rattan Chand to be caused by a Danda and on the person of Kalyan Cahnd to be caused by a sickle.
8. The evidence as led by the prosecution in the present case is cogent, convincing and reliable. It is pertinent to note here that except for the relationship of PW-6, Rattani Devi, with the complainant, no other reason has been assigned by the defence to show that she was hostile towards the accused. The delay in lodging the FIR, Ex.PW-9/B, has been duly explained by lodging the report on 9.9.2001, as the complainant and injured had firstly ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:10:27 :::HCHP 7 reported the matter to the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Gadiara on the same evening and, when nothing was done on that day as had got late in the night, the matter was reported on the next day to the Police. PW-2 Rattan .
Chand has specifically stated that he had reported the matter to the Panchayat, but he was advised by the Panchayat to report the matter with the police. So, he lodged report Ex.PW-2/A, at Police Post, Bhawarna.
of Nothing in cross-examination is in favour of the defence has come. The statement of PW-3 has remained un- rt shattered in cross examination. PW-7 Bishan Dass has stated that the matter was reported to Gram Panchayat, Gadiara. He visited the spot so delay in lodging the FIR is stood amply explained.
9. For these reasons, this Court finds no infirmity with the judgment of the Trial Court being upheld by the learned Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner be given benefit of probation of Offender Act. Taking into consideration the fact that the incident took place long ago in the year 2001 and the petitioner has been sentenced till the rising of the Court ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:10:27 :::HCHP 8 and fine in both the Sections and the fine already stood deposited.
10. In view of my above findings, the trial Court had rightly dealt with the evidence and found the same to be .
not worthy of credence. Thus, I find no merit and substance to interfere with the judgment passed by Courts below and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
11. Taking into consideration the entire sequence of of the evidence and the long pending of the matter, this Court finds that the interest of justice will be served in case the rt accused is released on probation. Inspite of sentencing the accused till rising of the court and fine to the accused is given benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, as the accused is an old person and has improved a lot with the passage of the age. So, this Court finds that inspite of awarding the punishment as awarded by the Court below sentencing him till the rising of the Court with fine of Rs.2000/- and Rs.1000/- respectively for the offences under Section 304 and 323 IPC, he be released on probation. So, it is ordered that after granting him the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:10:27 :::HCHP 9 benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, the petitioner is ordered to be kept on probation for a period of six months, subject to the report of the Probation Officer regarding good conduct of the appellant, to be filed by the Probation .
Officer in the trial Court. The present revision petition stands disposed of with the above observations.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) of Judge 26th April, 2016 (r.atal) rt ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:10:27 :::HCHP