Himachal Pradesh High Court
Suresh Kumar And Anr vs State Of H.P on 14 March, 2017
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 52 of 2011.
Date of Decision: 14.3.2017.
.
________________________________________________________________
[
Suresh Kumar and Anr. ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of H.P. .......Respondent.
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
of
Whether approved for reporting1?
For the petitioners: Mr. I.S. Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondent:
rt Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Deputy Advocate
General.
____________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Instant criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397/401 of the Cr.PC, is directed against the judgment dated 30.11.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, HP, in Criminal Appeal No. 5-S/10 of 2008, affirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.11.2007/14.12.2007, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Theog, District Shimla, H.P., in Case No. 367-1 of 2006, whereby each of the accused-petitioner ("the accused" for short) has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 332 of the IPC. The petitioners are further sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each under Section 353 of the IPC and Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:00:56 :::HCHP -2-to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each and in case of failure of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
.
2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that the complainant Joginder Singh, who at the relevant time was working as TGT at Government Middle School, Majahar, got his statement recorded under Section 154 of the Cr.PC to the Police stating therein of that since there were sports tournament of Senior Secondary Schools/higher Schools at Govt. High School Sarog, he was deputed there from 2.9.2006 till 6.9.2006. As per the complainant, Head Master rt Govt. High School Sarog, had appointed him the Mess Incharge during the tournaments. On 5.9.2006 ,at about 10:15/10:30pm, when he was sitting in the mess with his colleagues and was checking the mess cards of the children, he heard noise of some quarrel, upon which, he came out along with one Sh. Dharam Parkash Sharma, DPE and found that the accused-petitioners were quarreling with one Sh. Rajinder Singh P.E.T. Kelvi. The complainant further alleged that both the petitioners accused at that relevant time were under the influence of liquor. The complainant, Dharam Parkash and others after pacifying the matter, came inside the mess along with Dharam Parkash, whereafter one of the accused namely Bharma Nand alias Bhagat Ram inflicted the blow with stick from the back side on his head and co-accused Suresh also gave blow with the stick on his forehead as a result of which, the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:00:56 :::HCHP -3- complainant sustained injuries. On the basis of aforesaid submissions having been made by the complainant, FIR Ext.PW6/B was registered .
against the accused persons. After completion of investigation, police presented the challan in the competent court of Law.
3. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Theog, Distt. Shimla, H.P., after satisfying itself that prima facie case exists against the of accused, framed the charges under the Sections 353 and 332/34 of the IPC, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the rt prosecution, found the present petitioners-accused guilty of having committed offence under the aforesaid Sections and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as per description already given supra.
4. The accused being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, filed an appeal under Section 374 of Cr.PC, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Shimla, District Shimla, HP, who vide judgment dated 30.11.2010, dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused, as a result of which judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, the present petitioners approached this Court seeking their acquittal after setting aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the courts below.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:00:56 :::HCHP -4-5. Mr. I.S. Chandel, Advocate, representing the petitioners, vehemently argued that the judgments of conviction and sentence .
recorded by the courts below, are not sustainable as the same are not based upon the correct appreciation of evidence available on record and, as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. While referring to the impugned judgments passed by the courts below, Mr. of Chandel, strenuously argued that bare perusal of the judgments suggests that courts below failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, which has led to recording of erroneous findings to the rt detriment of the petitioners and as such, same cannot be allowed to sustain. Mr. Chandel, further contended that both the courts below committeed grave error while holding the petitioner guilty of having committed offences under Section 332 and 353 of the IPC because none of the ingredients of the aforesaid offences were proved by the prosecution and as such, there was no occasion for the courts below to award punishment, as has been done in the present case. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Chandel, made this court to travel through the evidence led on record by the prosecution, especially PW1 (the complainant), wherein he himself stated that he was deputed as mess in-charge in the tournament at Sarog and on 5.9.2006 at about 10:15-10:30 pm, he was sitting in the mess with his clerk and was checking the mess cards of the children. Mr. Chandel ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:00:56 :::HCHP -5- forcefully contended that close scrutiny of the deposition made by the complainant before the Court itself suggests that same was not .
trustworthy because since quarrel, if any, was between the accused and one Shri Rajinder Singh PET Kelvi, there was no occasion for the accused to give blow of stick on the head of the petitioner. As per Mr. Chandel, story as put forth by the prosecution, is neither reliable nor is of proved on record because there is nothing on record to suggest that the complainant at that relevant time was discharging his public duty.
Similarly, there is no evidence adduced on record by the prosecution rt suggestive of the fact that the complainant and others were deterred/ obstructed from discharging the public duty by the accused. He also stated that the alleged assault has not been proved to be made to deter the petitioners from their duty and as such, no punishment, if any, could be awarded under Sections 312 or 353 of the IPC. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Chandel, specifically invited attention of this Court to the opinion rendered by the Doctor (PW4), wherein there is no mention of another injury save and except of injury present on the scalp of the complainant. As per Mr. Chandel, prosecution was unable to prove on record that out of two accused who actually caused injury on the head of the complainant as reported by the Doctor. He also stated that MLC available on record itself falsifies the version put forth by the prosecution that both the accused gave blow of stick on the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:00:56 :::HCHP -6- head and forehead of the complainant respectively and as such, same could not be made basis by the Courts below for the conviction .
of the petitioner sunder Section 332 of the IPC and in the aforesaid background, Mr. Chandel, prayed that the petitioners-accused may be acquitted of charges framed against them after setting aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the courts below.
of
6. Per contra, Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, representing the State supported the impugned judgments passed by the courts below. Mr. Thakur vehemently argued that by no rt stretch of imagination, it may be said that there is no proper appreciation of evidence on record by the courts below, rather bare perusal of the impugned judgments suggests that same are based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence available on record and the courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and as such, no interference, whatsoever, of this court, especially, in view of the concurrent findings of fact as well as law recorded by the courts below is called for. Mr. Thakur further contended that prosecution successfully proved on record by placing reliance on documents that at that relevant time the complainant was performing his public duty assigned to him during the tournaments. He also stated that it stands duly proved that during the discharge of his public duty the complainant was assaulted, as a result of which, he ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:00:56 :::HCHP -7- suffered injury as stands duly proved with the medical evidence adduced on record. Mr. Thakur, also reminded this Court of its limited .
powers while exercising its revisionary powers under Section 397 of the Cr.PC, to re-appreciate the evidence, especially, when it stands duly proved on record that the courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously. In this regard, reliance is of placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case "State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri" (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 452, wherein it has been held as under:-
rt "In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice."
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well carefully gone through the record
8. True, it is that this Court has very limited powers under Section 397 Cr.PC while exercising its revisionary jurisdiction but in the instant case, where accused persons have been convicted and sentenced, it would be apt and in the interest of justice to critically examine the statements of the prosecution witnesses solely with a view ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:00:56 :::HCHP -8- to ascertain that the judgments passed by learned courts below are not perverse and same are based on correct appreciation of the .
evidence on record.
9. As far as scope of power of this Court while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishnan and another Versus Krishnaveni and another, of (1997) 4 Supreme Court Case 241; has held that in case Court notices that there is a failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is salutary duty of the rt High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
8. The object of Section 483 and the purpose behind conferring the revisional power under Section 397 read with Section 401, upon the High Court is to invest continuous supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to mete out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised revisional power under Section 397(1). However, when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/ incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order."
10. Material available on record suggests that prosecution by placing on record Ext.PW9A, Ext.PW9B and Ext.PW5A, made an attempt ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:00:56 :::HCHP -9- to prove that the complainant was a Govt. employee and he was serving as PET at Govt. Middle School Majahar under Government High .
School Sarog. Ext.PW5/A issued by the Head Master Govt. High School also suggests that Sh. Joginder Singh, the complainant, was deputed to check the mess cards of the students, whereas person namely Rajinder Singh was on ground duty. Similarly, perusal of document Ext.PW5/B of suggests that the complainant Joginder Singh was on official duty from 2.9.2006 to 6.9.2006 at Govt. High School, Sarog, where sports tournament was being carried on but this Court while examining the rt correctness and genuineness of the submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as impugned judgment passed by the courts below, was unable to lay its hand to any evidence, be it ocular or documentary, suggestive of the fact that at that relevant time, the complainant was performing his duty and he was prevented by the accused from discharging his duty. Similarly, this Court sees that though perusal of MLC Ext.PW4/A furnished by the Doctor (PW4) suggests that the complainant namely Joginder Singh suffered injury, which could be caused with sticks (Ext.PA and PB) but definitely, there is no convincing, cogent and reliable evidence, which could be termed sufficient to connect the petitioners accused with the offences allegedly committed by them.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:00:56 :::HCHP- 10 -
11. PW1 (the complainant) deposed before the Court that he is a TGT and Since 2.9.2006 to 6.9.2006, he was on duty in the .
tournaments of High Schools/ Senior Secondary Schools boys held at Government High School Sarog, Theog. PW1 further stated that on 5.9.2006 when he was discharging his duty in mess, he around 10:30 pm heard some noise and accordingly came out with D.P.E. Dharam of Prakash, where they found that the accused Suresh Kumar and Brahama Nand were calling bad names to PET Rajinder Singh. As per the complainant, thereafter they took Rajinder Singh inside the mess.
rt Subsequently, Brahma Nand and Suresh came in front of the mess under the influence of the liquor and when he tried to pacify the matter, accused Bhagat Ram and Suresh Kumar gave blow with stick on his head and forehead respectively. It has also come in his statement that he was on mess duty during the tournaments. He also stated that when the accused persons gave him beating he was posted in Govt. Middle School, Majahar. He in his cross-examination denied that he fell down as he was under the influence of liquor and as a result of which, he sustained injuries. He also denied the suggestion put to him that the accused person did not give beating to him.
12. PW2 Dharam Parkash, who happened to be with the complainant at the time of the accident also stated that he is posted as D.P.E. in Govt. High School. He also corroborated the version put ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:00:56 :::HCHP
- 11 -
forth by the complainant that there were tournaments going on in the school in the month of September, and on 5.9.2006, children were .
coming for taking their meal/dinner after the matches. He also stated that after hearing the noise, he came out and saw that there was scuffle between the Rajinder and the accused Suresh Kumar and Brahma Nand @ Baghat Ram. As per this witness, he rescued Rajinder of and thereafter, they came inside the mess. He further stated that the accused Suresh and Bhagat Ram came on the door of the mess and the complainant Joginder came out to have a talk with the accused rt persons and there he was inflicted injury on his head by the accused.
He also stated that he rescued the Joginder from the clutches of the accused. In his cross examination, he denied that Joginder Singh was under the influence of liquor.
13. PW3, Rajinder Kumar, stated that he was deputed at the tournaments at place Sarog on 5.9.2006 and in the evening around, 10 pm when he was coming to the mess, he saw 4-5 persons standing there and when he asked about their identity, they called him by bad names. He further stated that thereafter, he went inside the mess. It has also come in his statement that accused came inside the mess and started giving beatings and he was rescued by Dharam Prakash D.P.E. and the complainant Joginder Singh. He also stated that Joginder Singh came out to pacify the matter but after some time, he heard the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:00:56 :::HCHP
- 12 -
voice of crying. It has also come in his statement that on hearing cries, he and Dharam Prakash went out and saw that the accused persons .
were beating Joginder Singh. In his cross examination, he stated that he was rescued by Joginder Singh and Dharam Prakash from the clutches of the accused persons.
14. PW4 Dr. Ramesh Sharma, stated that he examined of Joginder Singh and furnished MLC Ext.PW4/A, he also stated that injury as stated in the MLC can be caused with the stick Exts.PA and PB. PW4 in his cross examination admitted the suggestion put to him that the rt injuries as reflected in the MLC can be caused by the fall on the floor.
He denied the suggestion put to him that the complainant was under
the influence of the liquor.
15. PW5, Yashpal Singh, Head Master Govt. High School Sarog, proved Ext.PW5/A & Ext.PW5/B. PW6 Head Constable Hardev Singh i.e. the I.O., stated that he reached at spot at about 11:45 pm, when 10-15 teachers were present inside the room. He also stated that person was stained with blood. PW7, PW8 and PW9 are the formal witnesses and their depositions may not be relevant at this stage.
16. If the depositions made by PW1, 2 and 3 are examined and read conjointly, they certainly compel this Court to conclude that version put forth by the prosecution is not trustworthy. All the aforesaid PWs gave altogether contradictory versions about the alleged incident.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:00:56 :::HCHP- 13 -
PW1 in his statement stated that when he was discharging his duty in a mess during tournaments, he heard the noise and came out with DPE .
Dharam Prakash, wherein they found that accused were calling bad names to PET Rajinder Singh. He also stated that thereafter they took Rajinder Singh inside the mess. But PW2 Dharam Prakash, nowhere stated that when he heard the noise he came out along with the of complainant Joginder Singh. In his statement before the Court below, PW2, Dharam Prakash stated that on 5.9.2006, the children were taking meal in the mess when he heard noise and accordingly came out and rt saw that there was scuffle between the Rajinder and the accused Suresh Kumar and Bhagat Ram @ Bharama Nand. He specifically stated that he rescued Rajinder and thereafter they came inside the mess. PW2, nowhere stated that he along with the complainant Joginder Singh went outside the mess after hearing the noise. PW3 Rajinder also gave altogether a different version. He deposed before the court below that on 5.9.2006, he was deputed for the duty at tournament at place called Sarog. He further stated that at about 10 pm, when he was coming to the mess, he saw 4-5 persons standing there and he asked for their identity, who called him by bad names.
PW3 nowhere stated that there was scuffle, if any, between him and the accused as named above, rather he stated that after inquiring the identity of the accused, he went inside the mess and accused came ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:00:56 :::HCHP
- 14 -
inside the mess and started giving him beatings. Interestingly, neither PW1, nor PW2 stated anything with regard to the beatings, if any, given .
by the accused to Rajinder Singh. PW3 further stated that he was rescued by Dharam Prakash and Joginder Singh. He also stated that thereafter Joginder Singh came out to pacify the matter but after some time, he heard the voice of crying and then he along with Dharam of Prakash came out and found that accused persons were beating Joginder Singh, whereas the case, as projected by PW1 and 2, is that they brought PW3 from the spot of the occurrence to the mess and rt thereafter accused came there.
17. Similarly, none of the aforesaid PWs gave specific timing of the alleged incident, rather all of them stated different timings of the incident. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that no much reliance could be put on the version put forth by the aforesaid PWs being contradictory to each other. Moreover, there is no whisper, if any, in the aforesaid statements having been made by the PWs that the accused made an attempt to prevent or deter the complainant from discharging his duty, rather evidence available on record, if taken to be true on its face value, suggests that dispute, if any, was between PW3, Rajinder Kumar and the accused. Similarly, dispute, if any, arose between PW3 and the accused outside the mess. PW1 himself stated that on hearing noise, he went outside and rescued PW3 from the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:00:56 :::HCHP
- 15 -
clutches of the accused, meaning thereby, there was no quarrel, if any, between the complainant and the accused inside the mess, where the .
complainant was performing his duty as assigned to him vide Ext.PW5/B.
18. Similarly, there is no evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that there was motive, if any, with the accused of to assault the complainant at that relevant time, because there is no mention of verbal wrangle, if any, between the complainant and the accused. Moreover, it is not understood that if at that relevant time, rt students were taking their meals in the mess, why anyone of them was not cited as PW to corroborate the version put forth by the PW1, complainant as well as his colleagues i.e. PW2 and PW3.
19. As per own case of the prosecution, there was sports tournament of High Schools/Sr. Secondary Schools (boys), meaning thereby, the students having age of more than 15-16 years were there to participate in the tournaments. It is undisputed that all the PWs (PWs 1, 2, and 3) were from the same department being teachers. True, it is that version put forth by the aforesaid PWs could not be rejected or disbelieved merely on the ground that they were employees of the same department but admittedly, as has been observed above, students were admittedly present in the mess at that relevant time, who could also be associated to make the story of the prosecution more ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:00:56 :::HCHP
- 16 -
trustworthy and reliable. Admittedly, the dispute was between Rajinder Kumar and the accused, as clearly emerge from the evidence, and as .
such, possibility cannot be ruled out that all the PWs, especially PW1, PW2 and PW3 concocted false story to save each others because it is not explained anywhere that how the accused came to be present at the spot of tournament that too at 10.30 pm, especially when they of were not assigned any duty. None of the PWs including PW1 stated that complainant Joginder Singh was prevented from discharging his duty by the accused at that time. Rather, as per own statement of the rt complainant, he himself went outside the mess after hearing noise.
20. Though aforesaid prosecution witnesses made an attempt to prove on record that at that relevant time, the complainant was discharging public duty of mess in-charge, assigned to him but prosecution has not brought anything on record suggestive of the fact that at that relevant time, he was obstructed/ prevented by the accused persons from discharging his duty. Similarly, all the PWs corroborated the version put forth by the complainant that he was assaulted by the accused by use of criminal force. PW1 in his statement stated that accused Bhrama Nand gave blow of danda on his head, whereas Suresh Kumar inflicted injury at his forehead with the blow of stick but interestingly, perusal of the Ext. PW4A i.e MLC suggests that the complainant suffered only one injury over the scalp. PW-4, Dr. ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:00:56 :::HCHP
- 17 -
Ramesh Sharma in his statement before the court stated that on 6.9.2006, he examined Joginder Singh, who was brought before him by .
the police officials and after examination, he opined Injury No.1 as under:-
" 2cm. X 0.5cm. by skin deep, by lacerated wounds over the scalp at the hair line centre of the scalp. Wound was urregular, there was clotted blood of present over the face and scalp. X.ray of skull was done and there was no fracture in the skull."
He further stated that injury No.1 was simple in nature. But definitely, rt there is no mention, if any, of the second injury allegedly suffered by the complainant as claimed by him in his statement. As per story of prosecution, accused inflicted blow of 'danda' on the head as well as forehead of the complainant, but there is no mention, if any, of second injury as claimed by the prosecution.
21. Hence, this Court sees substantial force in the arguments having been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that prosecution was unable to point out the actual culprit, who caused injury on the person of the complainant as reflected in MLC Ext.PW4/A. There is no mention of second injury on the person of the complainant as per report given by the PW4, whereas as per own case of the prosecution, the complainant was inflicted two injures; one on his head and second on the forehead.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:00:56 :::HCHP- 18 -
22. It was incumbent upon the prosecution while proving charges under Sections 332 and 353 of the IPC that the complainant .
was deputed for duty and on that date, he was discharging his duty as public servant at the spot of incident. Similarly, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that there was use of criminal force by the accused on public servant while he was performing his duty that too of with an intention to prevent or deter him from discharging the duty. But in the instant case, as clearly emerge from the record, neither prosecution was able to prove that the accused had made an rt attempt to prevent or deter the complainant from discharging his duty or used criminal force. Apart from above, this Court is of the view that by placing on record office order Ex. PW5/B, prosecution made an attempt to prove on record that the complainant was assigned the duty of mess manager but his appointment letter as placed on record clearly suggests that he was teacher and as such, it cannot be accepted that at that relevant time, he was performing his official duty.
At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that none of the prosecution witnesses stated that the accused had intention to prevent him from discharging his duty, rather dispute was entirely between the accused and PW3 that too outside the mess and the complainant had no concern, whatsoever with the dispute between the parties.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:00:56 :::HCHP- 19 -
23. It may be observed at this stage that perusal of statement having been made by the Investigating Officer, suggests that .
complainant himself was under influence of liquor at the relevant time.
Though, PW-4 while answering suggestion put to him stated that the complainant was not under the influence of liquor but if MLC is perused carefully, this Court sees substantial force in the submissions of having been made by the counsel for the petitioners that word "not"
was inserted later on. It appears that doctor after examining the complainant reported that patient was smelling liquor but same could rt not be proved by the defence. This Court after perusing the version putforth by the I.O., who admittedly took the complainant to the hospital for medical examination, has reason to believe that entire story was concocted by PW1, PW2 and PW3 to suppress the actual controversy, which led to the unfortunate incident.
24. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment passed by this Court in State of H.P. v. Gurmedh Bodh and Anr., Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 667, the relevant para whereof is being produced herein after:-
"4. Legally, to prove the charge under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove, the following ingredients of the offence:
(i) There must be assault or use of criminal
force;
(ii) Such assault or use of criminal force must
have been made on a public servant, and
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:00:56 :::HCHP
- 20 -
(iii) It must have been on a public servant-
a) While he was acting in the
execution of his duty or
b) With intent to prevent or deter
.
him from discharging his duty, or
c) In consequence of anything
done or attempted to be done
by him in discharge of duty.
Thus, the public servant must be acting in execution of his duty or must be discharging his duty as a public servant. The execution of of the duty is the sine quo non for the application of the aforesaid Section."
However, in the instant case, none of the ingredients as referred above, rt have been proved by the prosecution beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and as such, petitioners could not be held guilty of offence under Section 332 and 353 of the IPC.
25. This Court after bestowing its thoughtful consideration to the material available on record, has no hesitation to conclude that the courts below placed undue reliance upon the evidence led on record by the prosecution, which by no means could be termed to be cogent, convincing, trustworthy and most importantly sufficient to hold the petitioners guilty of having committed offences under Sections 332 and 353 of the IPC. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and judgments passed by the Courts below are quashed and set-aside.
Petitioners accused are acquitted of the charges so framed against ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:00:56 :::HCHP
- 21 -
them. Bail bonds are discharged. Interim order, if any, vacated. All applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
.
14th March, 2017 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:00:56 :::HCHP