Hariram and Others vs State of M. P.

S.L. Jain, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2-3-1990 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 57/88, whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted u/s 333/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default whereof, to undergo R.I. for one month.

Succinctly narrated, the prosecution case is that on the relevant date complainant V. K. Dubey, was posted as Manager Pashu Prajnan, Parikshetra - Minora. This Parikshetra has 5000 acres of land and on the date of incident about 225 animals were there for animal husbandry and allied works. The appellants along with some other labourers, were engaged by the complainant on daily wages basis to carry out manual work in the Parikshetra. On the date of occurrence at about 9.15 A.M. complainant V. K. Dubey reached at the farm to supervise the work of labourers. Appellants and one woman, namely, Kesharbai were engaged in grass cutting. Complainant V. K. Dubey found that Kesharbai alone cut 15 bundles of grass while Appellants could cut only 3 bundles each. Thus, the work done by the appellants was found to be thoroughly inadequate. At this, complainant V. K. Dubey expressed his displeasure and informed the appellants that as they did not work satisfactorily, they will not get the wages of that day. Their absence was also marked in the register and they were relieved of their duties. In enraged state of mind, the appellants left the farm.

Thereafter, for about one hour the complainant visitied some fields. At about 10.30 A.M. when he was going towards Usha Ghat farm, the appellants accosted him and in furtherance of their common intention caused injuries to him. Kesharbai and one other labourer Ghanshyam Yadav happened to be the witnesses of the incident. Ghanshyam came to the rescue of complainant V. K. Dubey, but due to the threats of the appellants, he could not do so. After causing injuries to V. K. Dubey, the appellants ran away. With great difficulty the complainant could reach his office where he narrated the incident to the Accountant B.D. Agrawal (P.W. 1) and Dr. R.P. Gupta (P.W. 7), who took him to the Government Hospital, Tikamgarh in the vehicle of the farm. Dr. O.P. Pawaiya (P.W. 2) reported the arrival of the complainant at the hospital, to P.S. Tikamgarh. On receiving this information, Sub Inspector Janved Singh (P.W. 6) reached Tikamgarh Hospital where written report Ex. P-5, duly forwarded by Assistant Director, was given to him. On the requisition of S.I. Janved Singh, Dr. O. P. Pawaiya (P.W. 2) examined the complainant and found as many as 8 injuries on his person. Dr. Pawaiya advised for X-ray examination of right hand of the complainant which was also performed. Ex.P-2 is the report of Dr. Pawaiya and Ex. P-3 is the X-ray report, which reveals fracture of metacarpal bone.

On 27-10-1985 an offence under sections 353 and 332/34. Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants. On 5-11-1985 the duty certificate of complainant V. K. Dubey was produced by Dr. R.P. Gupta. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and a charge u/s 333/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellants.

The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded that they were beaten by V. K. Dubey and, therefore, they lodged a report against V. K. Dubey at Kheirya police post. They also pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the incident.

The Trial Court, relying predominantly on the evidence of V. K. Dubey recorded the order of conviction and sentence against the accused/appellants.

Heard Shri Ashutosh Singh learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Sanjeev Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State.

Shri Singh led me through the record and contended that there is no evidence that at the time of occurrence complainant V. K. Dubey was discharging his duties as public servant. He further submitted that the evidence of V. K. Dubey is unnatural and suspicious and conviction cannot rest on such evidence.

Per contra, the learned Panel Lawyer has supported the judgment of the trial Court and claimed that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

V. K. Dubey (P.W. 3), in his deposition before the trial Court, has stated that on 26-10-1985, he was posted at Minora farm. Appellants were engaged as daily wages labourers to work at the farm. When he reached the farm to supervise the work of labourers, he found that only a little work was done by the appellants, therefore, he informed the appellants that they will not get the wages of that day. This caused annoyance to the appellants and they stopped the work and left the farm. After visiting other parts of the farm at about 10 A.M., when he was returning, the appellants were sitting behind a bush armed with lathis. The appellants collectively attacked him, as a result thereof he fell down from the bicycle. He sustained several injuries. Ghanshyam (P.W. 4) who was grazing the cattle near the place of occurrence, tried to intervene but due to the threats of the accused he could not rescue him. He also stated that somehow he reached his office where he narrated the incident to the accountant B.D. Agrawal and Assistant Director, Dr. R.P. Gupta. Both these persons took him to Tikamgarh Hospital in the vehicle of the farm. On the report of Dr. Pawaiya, police reached the hospital where a written report Ex. P-5 was submitted by the complainant to the police. Due to the injuries he remained admitted in the hospital for 6-7 days.

Ghanshyam (P.W. 4) and Kesharbai (P.W. 5), in their statements before the trial Court, have not supported the complainant and they were declared hostile. Ghanshyam (P.W.4), instead of supporting the prosecution version, has stated that V. K. Dubey was hit by a bull as a result thereof he fell down from the bicycle and sustained injuries. The story of being hit by bull itself appears to be a cock and bull story because the appellants themselves have not stated any such incident in their report lodged at Kheriya Police Post. In this report it was stated by them that they were beaten by V. K. Dubey. Appellants did not suggest to V. K. Dubey the story of hit by bull.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that V. K. Dubey (P.W.3) is an interested witness and his evidence should not have been accepted by the trial Court without corroboration. The proposition that the evidence of complainant should be corroborated by independent witness cannot of universal application. A complainant cannot be equated with an approver. He is certainly an interested witness in the sense that the case was initiated at his instance and he may desire his success therein, but the other aspect of the matter that being a government servant he would not take recourse to concoction in order to rope in the innocent persons, cannot be ignored. The complainant had no animosity against the accused persons. His evidence does not suffer from any infirmity. His testimony is corroborated not only by B.D. Agrawal (P.W.1) but also by medical evidence.

It is true that the rule of prudence requires a careful scrutiny of the testimony of an interested witness. But, if after careful scrutiny, the Court is satisfied that the evidence has a ring of truth, such evidence can be relied upon even without corroboration. On an analysis of the testimony of complainant, if it is found that there is no reason to disbelieve him, the mere fact that he is interested in the success of the case cannot persuade the Court to reject the prosecution case on that ground alone. Interested witness is not necessarily a false witness. Though the fact that such witness has some interest in the matter must put the Court on its guard and the Court must assess evidence carefully. The evidence of V. K. Dubey cannot be at once discarded simply because it came from the complainant. He is an injured witness and his presence at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted. His testimony in the light of probabilities inspires confidence.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that V. K. Dubey (P.W. 3) admitted that the incident occurred when he was returning from the farm and at that time he was not discharging the duty as a public servant. The argument is fallacious. It is not necessary that to attract section 333 of the Indian Penal Code grievous hurt must be caused to the public servant while he is discharging his duties as a public servant. If the injury is caused with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duties or in consequence anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duties as such public servant, the requirement of section 333 of Indian Penal Code is satisfied.

It is not a case where the accused were unaware of the fact that the person they were acting against was a public servant. The appellants assaulted the complainant as a sequel to his refusal to give them the attendance for that day. The expression "in consequence" in section 333 of the Indian Penal Code includes the motive which actuates the accused to cause grievous hurt to a public servant, therefore, this contention cannot be accepted.

Learned counsel also contended that the Ex. P. 9 is a suspicious document because the words "Pratah Se" have been subsequently inserted in the document. There is no evidence that words "Pratah Se" were subsequently inserted in the document. The addition is in the green ink and the signature of the officer issuing certificate is also in the same ink. It is obvious that the insertion was made at the time of issuing the certificate. On the same document there is another certificate in English which establishes that on 26-10-1985 V. K. Dubey was on duty from 6.00 A.M. to 6.00 P.M. Even otherwise, for a supervisory duty there cannot be fixed hours of duty, therefore, much cannot be made from discrepancy in the certificate. The certificate was issued by Dr. R.P. Gupta (P.W.7) who has clearly stated that due to the typing error the words "Pratah Se" were omitted, therefore, they were inserted by hand.

Shri Singh, learned counsel for the appellants further contended that attendance register of the witness has not been produced in evidence, which could have been the best evidence to establish his presence on the spot. But this contention deserves to be rejected because Dr. R.P. Gupta (P.W.7) has also clearly stated that no attendance register is kept for the officers. Therefore, non-production of attendance register, which in fact, did not exist, will not affect the merit of the prosecution case.

The trial Court properly and objectively considered the evidence to reach to the conclusion that the appellants are guilty of offence charged. The approach of the trial Court as to the evidence adduced in the case is legal, proper and reasonable, therefore, the order of conviction cannot be interfered with.

Regarding sentence, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the incident took place in the year 1985 and a long period of more than 18 years have elapsed. That the appellants have already suffered a lot during the prolonged trial and during pendency of the appeal, therefore, a lenient view in the matter of sentence may be taken. This argument is also bereft of merit. A public servant is a servant of the society and needs social protection so that he is not demoralized in the performance of his duty and allowed to serve free from fright. Looking to the fact that the accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt to a public servant, no lenient view can be taken. The sentence awarded by the trial Court is just and proper, and no interference therein is called for.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, this appeal stands dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellants are maintained. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the appellants stand cancelled. They are directed to surrender themselves before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tikamgarh on or before February 20, 2003 to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. A copy of this judgment along with record of the Court-below be sent to the C.J.M., Tikamgarh, forthwith.