Alladitta vs State of H.P.

Bhawani Singh, J.—The accused has challenged his conviction by the Sessions Judge, Chamba in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1987 decided on 20-4-1988. He has been convicted u/s 333 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 30th September, 1986, Dev Raj (PW-1) was the Driver in Himachal Road Transport Corporation Bus No HPC- 452. He was assigned the duty to take the vehicle from Chamba to Saho with Kehar Singh (PW-2) as it''s Conductor. The Bus started at about 11.45 A.M. from Chamba with 30 to 40 passengers and the accused was one of them. It reached Chaminu at about 12.45 P.M. and 8 to 10 passengers got down from the Bus before proceeding further from this place. Shortly thereafter, the Conductor blew whistle to stop the vehicle and on being asked why the vehicle was intended to be stopped the accused immediately came to the Driver''s seat and asked him why he did not stop the vehicle in front of the house. He said "KIYA YEH TERE BAAP KI GADI HAI"(does this Bus belong to your father). Then the accused got down from the Bus and came to Driver''s Window. He opened it and dragged the Driver from his seat and threw him on the road. The accused gave him beating and hit him on the back. It was pucca road and before the passengers could come out to rescue the Driver, the accused ran away.

After driving the vehicle for some distance, it became impossible for him to do so due to physical incapacity caused by the beatings. As a result thereof the Conductor went to Saho and informed the Adda In charge by telephone. Police came with a Jeep and the Driver was taken to District Hospital, Chamba. On examination, it was found that he suffered fracture of first Lumber vertibra. The matter was investigated and the accused was tried for the commission of offence u/s 333 Indian Penal Code. His defense appears to be that he intended to get down from the Bus at Chaminu but the Driver did not stop the Bus there in spite of the fact that the Conductor whistled him to do so and that ultimately it was stopped at a distance and he got down from the Bus, the Driver also came there and kicked him. During this time, he fell down and sustained injury. He ran of the. scene since he apprehended that he was likely to be beaten by the Driver and the Conductor.

The Court found that Dev Raj was a public servant at the relevant time and he was performing official duty. It was found that the accused was responsible for beating him and was liable to be convicted and punished for the commission of the offence u/s 333 of Indian Penal Code.

Shri G.D. Sharma, counsel for the accused contended that the conviction of the accused is liable to be set aside since the commission of the offence has not been proved against the accused. Let the matter be examined to see whether the prosecution has been able to substantiate the charge against the accused. There is no dispute about the incident. There is also no dispute that Dev Raj was the Driver of the Bus No. 542 and the vehicle was going from Chamba to Saho. The only question to be seen is whether it was the accused who gave beatings to the Driver resulting into the injury sustained by him. Injury has been sustained, there is no doubt about it, since in the statement of Dr. V.K. Pathak (PW-5) it has been categorically stated that:

(a) There was local tenderness in the back in Lumbosacral region.

(b) There was limitation of movements of both hip joints;

(c) There was pain and tenderness in the lower cervical region.

According to the Skiagrams, there was interior compression with collapse of first Lumber vertibra, i.e., fracture of vertibra.

It is in evidence that the Conductor gave whistle thereby to ask the Driver to stop the vehicle. The accused came to the Driver''s seat and enquired as to why the vehicle was not stopped in front of his house. He also said "KIYA YEH TERE BAAP KI GADI HAI" (does this bus belongs to your father). Thus the Driver (Sic. Accused?) dragged down the Driver through his window. He was pulled from his Bush Shirt and thrown on the metalled road. He was also given beatings by kicks also including on the back of his body and before the passengers and the Conductor could come down to rescue him the accused ran away. This is the version of most of the prosecution witnesses in this case. Although the accused has challenged the varsity (sic) of prosecution witnesses, yet there is no reason why they should be disbelieved. High handedness of the accused is quite clear and has been clearly established in this case. The matter has been gone into by the Sessions Judge quite exhaustively before holding the accused responsible for the commission of the offence. My examination of the matter is also that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the case against the accused and the evidence led by the accused is neither worthy of credence nor in tune with these circumstances in which the offence was committed. Accordingly, the defense is liable to be rejected and has been rightly done by the Sessions Judge.

The result, therefore, is that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly rejected.

On the question of sentence Shri G.D. Sharma, Advocate has made compassionate plea that the accused is a young man with no past conviction. It was also submitted that the accused has also to look after his family and in case he is sentenced to imprisonment, the whole family is likely to suffer immensely. Looking to these submissions as well as the fact that the offence was committed in the year 1.986, it is desirable that instead of directing the accused to undergo imprisonment awarded by the trial Judge, he is given the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. It is directed that the accused be released on probation of Good Conduct for a period of two years on execution of a bond with one surety to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during this period. The personal and surety bond will be submitted by the accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate, Chamba within two months from today. The Court will accept the same after receiving a report from the probation officer concerned and will also inform this Court of any lapse if committed by the accused during this period so that the accused is called upon to serve the sentence already imposed by the trial Judge.