Satbir vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is a Criminal Revision at the instance of Satbir and Mange Ram against the order dated 4.10.1996 of Sessions Judge, Bhiwani whereby he dismissed their appeal and maintained their conviction and sentence passed upon them on 2829.9.1995 by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu in Criminal Case No. 891 of 1990/92 FIR No. 51 dated 2.4.1990 under Sections 332/353/186 Indian Penal Code of P.S. Loharu. Prosecution case briefly stated is that on 2.4.90, Shri Virender Singh Joon, General Manager, Haryana Roadways Bhiwani sent complaint Ex.PW2/A to Police Post, Digama to the fact that on that day, he along with Ram Singh, Inspector; Mohinder Singh, SubInspector; Jaspal Singh and constable Om Parkash was checking vehicles to see whether there were traffic violations by any vehicle. In the meantime, a four wheeler TATA 407 bearing registration No. HNB 2685 was seen coming from village Obra side to Mela Pahari Mata side. That four wheeler was carrying about 45 passengers. Signal was raised to stop that four wheeler. Mange Ram was driver/owner of that four wheeler. He did not stop that four wheeler. That four wheeler was chased. Mange Ram stopped that four wheeler at the mela site of Pahari Mata. He was asked to show the necessary documents with regard to that four wheeler as required under the Motor Vehicles Act. Mange Ram refused to show them the necessary documents. Mange Ram and Satbir gave beatings to the members of the checking staff namely Inspector Ram Singh, SubInspector Mohinder Singh, Jaspal Singh and constable Om Parkash. Satbir was apprehended at the spot. Mange Ram, however, succeeded in running away from the spot with the said four wheeler. On the basis of complaint, case FIR No. 51 dated 2.4.90 was registered at PS Loharu under Sections 332/353/186 Indian Penal Code. After investigation Satbir and Mange Ram were challaned. Satbir and Mange Ram were tried by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani on charge framed against them under Sections 353/332/186 IPC. At the conclusion of the trial, he convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to undergo RI for one month each and to pay fine of Rs. 200/ each or in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month each under Section 186 IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo RI for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months each under Section 332 IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months each and pay fine of Rs. 500/ each or in default to undergo further RI for one month each under Section 353 IPC. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Not satisfied with the order of the Magistrate dated 2829.9.95 convicting and sentencing them under Sections 186/332/353 IPC, they knocked the door of the Court of Session at Bhiwani through appeal. Their appeal was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide order dated 4.10.1996. Still not satisfied, they have knocked the door of this court through this Crl. Rev. No. 781 of 1996.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is highly unnatural and improbable that Satbir and Mange Ram who were 2 in number had assaulted Ram Singh Inspector, Mohinder Singh Sub Inspector, Jaspal Singh and constable Om Parkash who were four in number. Inspector Ram Singh PW1 stated that he and General Manager, Haryana Roadways Shri Virender Singh Joon were given slaps and fist blows by these accused. He has stated that these accused, in the first instance, grappled with Shri Virender Singh Joon. When he (Ram Singh) stepped forward to disengage them from Shri Joon, they grappled with him. It has also been stated by him that none of them got himself medically examined. Shri Virender Singh Joon, General Manager Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani PW2 has stated that on 2.4.90 when they were going to Mela Pahari Mata for seeing mela operations and for traffic checking, four wheeler No. HNB 2685 was seen going to Pahari. It was carrying 4045 passengers. It was being driven by Mange Ram. Constable Om Parkash signalled that four wheeler to stop. That four wheeler was, however, not stopped. They chased that four wheeler. The four wheeler stopped near Pahari for unloading the passengers. They asked Mange Ram to show them the necessary documents. Instead of showing them the necessary documents, Mange Ram and Satbir abused them and grappled with them. They grappled with Inspector Ram Singh. They gave beating to Inspector Ram Singh, Sub Inspector Mohinder Singh and constable Jaspal Singh. It was submitted that General Manager, Shri Virender Singh Joon has nowhere stated that he had been given beating by Mange Ram and Satbir. They are thus discrepant with each other. Satbir was apprehended at the spot and made over to the police.

Shri Virender Singh, General Manager, Inspector Ram Singh, Sub Inspector Mohinder Singh, Jaspal Singh and Constable Om Parkash were at traffic checking. Signal was raised to stop the said four wheeler. Mange Ram who was driving that four wheeler did not stop it. When this vehicle was stopped on being chased and Mange Ram and conductor Satbir were asked to show the necessary documents relating to the vehicle, they refused to show them the necessary documents and became riotous. Four wheeler was carrying 4045 passengers. Passengers had naturally sympathies with the conductor and the driver of the four wheeler. Satbir and Mange Ram became emboldened because of the 4045 passengers travelling in their four wheeler; otherwise they could not have assaulted Inspector Ram Singh and others and deter them from performing their duty. Inspector Ram Singh may have exaggerated when he stated that Shri Virender Singh Joon was also assaulted. He has not told a lie. If a witness exaggerates, it is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff and disengage what is truthful from what is exaggeration/falsehood. Fact remains that Inspector Ram Singh, Sub Inspector Mohinder Singh, Jaspal Singh were assaulted by Satbir and Mange Ram with a view to deter them from performing their official duty.

Inspector Ram Singh and others cannot be belied because they had not got themselves medically examined. If they had gone to the Medical Officer for being got medically examined, no wonder Medical Officer would not have been able to find any mark of assault on them because slaps/fist blows normally do not leave any visible mark of injury on the victim.

It has been submitted that Ram Singh PW has nowhere stated that Mange Ram had iron rod with him. If he had iron rod with him, he would have used it. Shri Virender Singh Joon, PW has stated that Mange Ram did not use iron rod. Why should Shri Virender Singh Joon PW2 who is General Manager, Haryana Roadways depose against the accused if they had not assaulted Shri Ram Singh and others and deterred them in the performance of their official duty. Mohinder Singh Sub Inspector PW3 stated that Mange Ram and Satbir deterred them from performing their official duty on 2.4.90 when they were on traffic checking. He has stated that Mange Ram and Satbir exchanged blows with Ram Singh and Om Parkash.

It has been next submitted that there is no corroboration by independent evidence to the testimony of Inspector Ram Singh and others. Suffice it to say, passengers could be independent witnesses but they lost their independence because of their sympathies with the conductor and the driver.

It has been next submitted that Investigating Officer has not been produced. Suffice it to say, nonproduction of the investigation officer has not caused any prejudice to the accused because the investigating officer did not do anything except that he recorded the statements of PWs under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared the rough site plan.

For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the learned courts below justifiably found the charge under Sections 186/353/332 IPC proved against Mange Ram and Satbir. It is not a case where the accused should have been sentenced to imprisonment. Rather they should have been given one opportunity to reform themselves and follow the path of rectitude, keeping in view the reformative trend of modern penology towards reformation and reclamation of the offender. They are not shown to be used to the life of habitual criminal. There are no special reasons for denying them the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. For these reasons the sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the lower appellate court is set aside. Instead it is ordered that the petitioners shall be released on probation on their entering into bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ with one surety of the like amount to appear and receive sentence when called upon to do so during a period of one year from the date of furnishing of the bonds and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. Personal bonds and surety bonds shall be furnished to the satisfaction of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu. Fine deposited by the petitioners shall stand adjusted towards the cost of prosecuting the accusedpetitioners. With this modification in the sentence, the revision petition is dismissed.