Pawan Kumar vs State of H.P.

Surjit Singh, J.—Petitioner is aggrieved by his conviction and sentence for offences, under Sections 353 and 332 IPC, as awarded by the trial Magistrate, vide judgment dated 22.5.2002 and affirmed by the Sessions Court, vide judgment dated 28.8.2004.

Petitioner was challaned by the police, under Sections 353 and 332 IPC, for allegedly assaulting PW-1 Daulat Ram, driver of an HRTC bus, on 30.8.1995 at 4 p.m., when he was discharging his duties as driver of the aforesaid bus. He was charged with the aforesaid offences, to which he pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined, the driver of the bus, namely Daulat Ram as PW-1, conductor of the bus Subhash Chand as PW-2 and one independent witness, namely Bhagi Rath as PW-3. Independent witness did not support the prosecution version.

Trial Court relying upon the testimony of the driver and the conductor of the bus, convicted the Petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence, u/s 332 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for offence, u/s 353 IPC. Appeal was carried by the Petitioner to the Sessions Court, which has been dismissed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner as also the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State and gone through the record.

Though revision Petitioner has been convicted of offence, u/s 332 IPC for allegedly voluntarily causing hurt to the driver of the bus in the discharge of his duties as public servant, there is absolutely no evidence, with regard to the allegation that injury had been caused to the driver. Driver Daulat Ram himself, while in the witness box as PW-1, stated that he sustained no injury.Investigating Officer of the case, namely PW-7 ASI Anant Ram also stated that the driver sustained no injury and that is why he was not got medically examined. Therefore, revision Petitioner''s conviction and sentence for offence 332 IPC are liable to be set aside on this score alone.

Otherwise also, evidence on record does not prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Petitioner assaulted the driver of the bus in the discharge of his duties as a public servant. According to the driver himself, he was dealt 4-5 blows, but he did not sustain any injury. Conductor of the bus, namely Subhash Chand, examined as PW-2, stated that the driver sustained injury below his right eye, which turned bluish. Again, according to the driver, he had been assaulted, because the Petitioner had been made to de-board the bus earlier at a place known as Gutkar, on account of his travelling without ticket and that when he was forced to alight from the bus, he (the Petitioner) had threatened that he would see him. Conductor of the bus Subhash Chand, in his testimony as PW-2, did not say anything about the alleged threat.

According to PW-1 Daulat Ram, Driver and PW-2 Subhash Chand, Conductor, incident had taken place at 4 p.m., but the Investigating Officer ASI Anant Ram, in his testimony as PW-7, stated that incident had taken place before 3.30 p.m., because he stated that he reached the spot at 3.30 p.m. and at that time two-three vehicles were parked on the spot and several passengers had gathered on the spot.

In view of the above stated position, revision petition is allowed. Conviction and sentence of the revision Petitioner, as ordered by the trial Magistrate and upheld by the Sessions Court, are set aside. Revision-Petitioner is acquitted. Fine, if already deposited, be refunded to the Petitioner.