Ram Niwas vs State of Haryana

P.K. Jain, J.

This revision is directed against the order dated 4.12.1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind whereby the conviction of the petitioner for an offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind by his judgment dated 21.7.1992 has been confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed upon him have been set aside and the petitioner has been ordered to be released on probation of good conduct on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs. 3000/ with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year.

Criminal Revision No. 751 of 1993 has been filed by Shri Nand Kishore Gupta, the complainant, against the same judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind challenging the order granting probation to the petitioner Ram Niwas and praying that substantive sentence of imprisonment be imposed upon him.

The facts necessary for the disposal of these petitions are that Nand Kishore Gupta was posted as Headmaster of S.D. High School, Jind and Ram Niwas, the present petitioner was posted as a teacher of Mathematics therein. On 29.11.1990 at about 9.45 a.m. Shri Nand Kishore Gupta was working in his office. Shri Ram Niwas, the petitioner entered the office, misbehaved with the said Headmaster and abused him. On hearing the noise Shri Sat Parkash Bhatnagar, P.T.I., Shri Sushil Kumar Assistant and Shri Jagdish peon of the School also came there. In their presence the petitioner gave slaps, fist and kick blows to the complainant. The petitioner also caught hold the complianant by neck and threatened him with dire consequences. On an intervention by the three witnesses mentioned above the complainant was resccued. The complainant went to Civil Hospital Jind and got himself medically examined. On the written application Ex. PA alongwith the copy of the MedicoLegal Report Ex. PW 6/A, First Information Report EX. PA/1 was recorded. After obtaining the opinion of the Dental Surgeon and completing the investigation, a chargesheet for the offences under Sections 323/506 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted to the Court.

A charge under sections 323/506 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined Shri Nand Kishore (PW1), Shri Sushil Kumar (PW2), Shri Sat Parkash Bhatnagar (PW3), Doctor Yogesh Kumar Sharma (PW4), A.S.I. Surjit Singh (PW5), Doctor Prem Kumar (PW6) and Sub Inspector Karan Singh (PW7).

In his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that on that day he was given bealing by the complainant and his companions and when he had gone to the police to lodge a report, the police did not register the case and instead arrested him. In his defence the petitioner examined two witnesses i.e. Ranbir Singh (DW.1) and Narain Dutt (DW.2).

On the appraisal of the evidence produced on the record, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind by judgment dated 21.7.1992 found the petitioner to be guilty of an offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code but acquitted him the charge under section 506 Indian Penal Code. After hearing the petitioner on the question of sentence, the Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine Rs. 1000/ and in default of payment thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The conviction and sentence were challenged by way of appeal. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jind by the impugned judgment affirmed the order of conviction but modified the sentence as stated above. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has come to this court under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code).

I have heard Shri Hemant Kumar Advocate alongwith Shri Raj Paul Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri R.K. Gupta Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant (petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 751 of 1993) and Shri Raman Gaur, Advocate learned counsel for the State of Haryana and have gone through the record.

While assailing the judgments/orders of the two courts below the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that both the courts below have missed the evidence, that the medical evidence does not prove that the petitioner caused any hurt to Shri Nand Kishore Gupta, that the opinion given by the Dental Surgeon also does not support the case of the complainant and as such no case under section 323 I.P.C. has been proved against the petitioner. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that an offence under section 323 I.P.C. is noncognizable offence and therefore the police could not have taken cognizance thereof and as such the challan put up by the police was incompetent and without jurisdiction. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant and his companious had given beatings to the petitioner for which he had filed a separate complaint since the police had not registered any case on his statement.

On the other hard, it has been argued by the learned state counsel that there is a concurrent finding of facts by both the courts below and this Court will not interfere with such findings under section 401 of the Code. It has been further pointed out by the learned counsel that the case was registered for the offences under sections 323/506 Indian Penal Code and a charge sheet was also submitted to the court accordingly in respect of both the offences. Therefore, it cannot be said that the police had no power to register and investigate the case.

Shri R.K. Gupta, Advocate the learned counsel for the complainant, while supplementing the arguments of the State counsel has argued that the Additional Sessions Judge fell in error in releasing the petitioner on probation, that the Headmaster is the head of the institution and that if a teacher behaves in such like manner it would become impossible for the head to run the institution. It has been thus argued that the offence being serious in the facts and circumstances of the case, substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate ought to have been affirmed.

I have given my careful thought to the respective arguments addressed at the Bar. It is well settled that the High Court will not interfere in the revision unless it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so to prevent an otherwise irreparable injustice. The mere fact that the High Court sitting as a Court of appeal might have come to a different conclusion on facts from what the Magistrate arrived at is also not a sufficient ground for interference in revision. When there is concurrent finding of facts recorded by the two Courts below, the High Court, as a rule, will not go into the evidence save in exceptional cases or where the judgment of the facts is manifestly wrong and grossly and palpably unjust. In Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration, 1975 Cri L.J. 1732, their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal revision application is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a reappreciation of evidence.

A close scrutiny of the judgments rendered by both the courts reveal that the finding of guilty against the petitioner is based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on the record. Both the courts below have recorded curcurrent finding of guilty against the petitioner which is based on cogent and convincing reasons with which I am in full agreement. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to bring to my notice that any manifest illegality or gross and serious miscarriage of justice in the case in hand has occasioned to the petitioner which requires interference with such a concurrent finding of guilty recorded by both the courts below.

Therefore, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Coming to the Criminal Revision No. 751 of 1993, it is enough to say that the question of sentence depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In view of the law discussed above, this court is always reluctant in interfere even with the order of sentence unless the same is manifestly and grossly unjust. It may be pointed out that in para 8 of the impugned judgment the Additional Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons for releasing the petitioner on probation of good conduct. I do not find any reason to differ therewith. Even otherwise, the incident relates to 22.11.1990. A period of about six years has already elapsed and that the petitioner has already undergone the period of probation and no untoward incident has been alleged against him. In these circumstances Criminal Revision No. 751 of 1993 is also devoid of any merit.

For the reasons mentioned above, both the Criminal Revision No. 96 of 1993 and 751 of 1993 are hereby dismissed.