Mukut Singh and Others vs State of U.P.

K.N. Ojha, J.—Heard Sri K. M. Misra, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri R. R. K. Mishra, learned A.G.A.

Instant revision has been preferred against the order of conviction and sentence dated 23.1.1985 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Etawah, in Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 1984, Mukut Singh and three others v. State by which the order of conviction passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Court No. 9, Etawah, was confirmed but sentence u/s 323 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and Section 506, I.P.C. was modified and the revisionists Mukut Singh, Maharaj Singh, Prahlad Singh and Angad Singh, all residents of village Sultanpur, police station Airwa Katara, district Etawah, were given benefit of Section 4 of Probation of First Offenders Act and it was directed that they be released on furnishing a bond of Rs. 2,000 each with two sureties to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to receive sentence whenever called upon. It was also directed that they shall also pay Rs. 400, i.e., Rs. 100 each as compensation to the complainant u/s 5 of the Act.

The Munsif Magistrate had passed order of conviction, of the accused revisionist and had directed to undergo a sentence of six months R.I. u/s 323, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. three months R.I. u/s 506, I.P.C. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

Prosecution case is that Phool Singh resident of the village Sultanpur, police station Airwa Katara, district Etawah, had installed a Rahat (irrigation machine) in plot No. 837, which was demolished by the revisionists. Therefore, a case was filed by the complainant against the revisionists in the Court of Etawah in which 6.10.1982 was date fixed for hearing. When he was coming back to his house at 4.30 p.m. the revisionists caused injuries to him with sticks near district Jail, Etawah. He went to the police station and lodged F.I.R. against the revisionists by name at 5.30 p.m. under Sections 323 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and 506, I.P.C. He was medically examined by Dr. C. L. Katiyar on 6.10.1982 at 8.30 p.m. On his body following injuries were found:

(1) Contusion 3 cm. ? 2 cm. behind right shoulder.

(2) Contusion 3 cm. ? 2.5 cm. on upper portion of left arm.

(3) Contusion 2.5 cm. ? 2 cm. on right elbow.

(4) Contusion 4 cm. ? 2 cm. on the back of left leg.

(5) Contusion 4 cm. ? 2 cm. on the knee of left leg.

(6) Abraded contusion 2 cm. ? 1 cm. on right leg knee.

Prosecution examined Phool Singh and one eye-witness Gorey Lal and Dr. C. L. Katiyar, who proved the injury report. After appreciating the evidence it was held by the Magistrate that commission of the offence was proved, therefore, order of conviction and sentence was passed against the revisionist. Aggrieved therefrom the revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 1984. In the said appeal the order of the Magistrate was confirmed but the sentence was modified and benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of First Offenders Act was given.

The learned Counsel for the revisionist submits that one of the accused is tube-well operator and it is not expected that he will involve himself in such crime, which may affect his service career. It is also submitted that in the F.I.R. only two injuries find place while in the medical examination report there is mention of six injuries. It is submitted that there is contradiction in the contents of the F.I.R. and the injury report.

A perusal of the report shows that since the complaint case was already pending, the complainant Phool Singh did not have grievance to falsely implicate the revisionists in the crime. If Phool Singh had to falsely involve the revisionists in the crime only one or two minor injuries would have been sufficient rather than inflicting six injuries on his body in order to falsely involve the revisionist. It was broad daylight occurrence. The F.I.R. was promptly lodged by name against the revisionists within one hour. Statement of the complainant Phool Singh is consistently supported by eye-witnesses Gorey Lal and injury report has been proved by Dr. C. L. Katiyar. The F.I.R. contained brief description of the crime. Some constable had noted down those injuries, which were specific and prominent rather than a detailed examination by the doctor. In such circumstances if the constable has noted down only two injuries and the doctor had mentioned six injuries in the report, it cannot be said that there was contradiction and on this ground the report of the doctor cannot be disbelieved.

It was broad daylight occurrence and it cannot be said that some unknown persons came and caused injuries to the complainant and due to enmity the revisionist were falsely implicated in the crime.

I have gone through the judgments of both the courts below. Proper discussion of the evidence has been made in respect of F.I.R., injuries, evidence, motive and other facts. Therefore, the judgments delivered by both the courts below do not suffer from any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity.

Learned Counsel for the revisionists submits that Mukut Singh is a tube-well operator and a lenient view be taken. A lenient view may be taken in respect of quantum of sentence, which has already been taken by the court below. Whether an accused is a public person and nowhere employed or he is a Government employee, if he commits some offence, he is responsible for it. There is nothing on the record, which may show that since the time the occurrence took place in 1982, any action has been taken against the revisionist Mukut Singh by the department concerned even though he was convicted by two courts below. Therefore, to say that this finding will adversely affect him is not maintainable. The learned appellate court has not awarded any such punishment, which may necessitate sending him into jail, and may cause his dismissal or removal from service.

Considering the punishment and nature of offence committed by the revisionist the impugned judgments do not require any interference by this Court.

The revision is dismissed.