Yodh Raj vs State of H.P.

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—Petitioner Yodh Raj challenges his conviction by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Anni, District Kullu, for offences under Sections 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC which has been affirmed by the learned appellate Court.

The case set out by the prosecution is that on 6.3.2002 at around 9.45 P.M. at Dalash, Yodh Raj parked his vehicle HP-35-0222 in front of the shop of the complainant. PW-2 Roshan Lal, brother of the complainant, protested and told him to remove the car from there, but, his request was ignored. Later on Yodh Raj alongwith two other accused Dev Raj and Suresh returned to the spot after five minutes. The complainant was caught hold by Dev Raj and Suresh, while Petitioner Yodh Raj gave him blow with an axe Ex.P-2. The complainant Inder Jeet PW-1 instinctively raised his hands in order to save himself and thereby sustained injuries on his right thumb. This incident was witnessed by Labh Singh, PW-4. The matter was reported to the police and First Information Report Ex.PW-1/A was registered. Blood stained shirt Ex.P-1 was taken into possession by the police. An axe Ex.P-2, which is the instrument of offence, was seized. Complainant Inder Jeet PW-1 was sent for medical examination. His MLC Ex.PW-3/A was prepared by PW-3 Dr. Gian Chand Thakur who was posted as Medical Officer.

On the evidence of PW-1, Inder Jeet, who proved that the accused had parked the vehicle in front of shop and when he had asked the accused not to do so, he alighted from the car and delivered blow with a small axe as a result of which he sustained injury on his right hand thumb. He was medically examined. He also identified the blood stained shirt Ex.P-1 which he was wearing at the time of the incident. Roshan Lal, PW-2, brother of the complainant, corroborates his evidence including the fact that on being asked not to park the vehicle in front of the shop, accused returned with the other two accused Dev Raj and Suresh, whereupon both of them held him and blow was delivered by the Petitioner. Dr. Gian Chand Thakur, PW-3, has proved the injuries, which according to him were simple. Three injuries were found on the person of the Petitioner, out of these at least two could be caused by blunt weapon whereas third by a sharp edged weapon. Labh Singh, PW-4, is the eye witness to the case and he states that on 6.3.2002 he rushed to the spot of occurrence. He witnessed that there was a scuffle between the complainant, PW-1 Inder Jeet and accused Yodh Raj. Though this witness has been declared hostile, but he has admitted in his cross-examination that the accused Yodh Raj had beaten up the complainant who was rescued by some other persons.

The accused persons appeared as their own witnesses after permission was granted to them u/s 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Yodh Raj DW-1 states that he had parked his vehicle on the left side of the road and thereafter went to the school, when he returned he found that the tyre of the vehicle hasdbeen deflated. The complainant and his brother Roshan Lal PW-2, were standing outside the shop and when he asked them as to why they have deflated the tyre, both of them started beating him and he was rescued by Dalip, Balak Ram and Rajender. According to him, the injury was caused when the complainant fell on a heap of bricks which was lying near the school gate. DW-2, Suresh Kumar, states that he was present in the school Saraswati Vidya Mandir and that there was no occasion to either beat up the complainant or his brother. He admits that the other accused are his relations. DW-3 Udai Singh appeared in the witness box and states that he was Principal of Sarswati Vidya Mandi School, Dalash, and that accused Suresh was present in the school from 9.45 A.M. to 4.00 P.M. In his cross-examination he admits that there is no lock on the gate of the school premises and teachers can usually go to the neighbouring market even without obtaining his permission. He also admitted and this fact is important, that there is wholesale cuttings and over-writings in the attendance register mark `B''. This is the entirety of the evidence before the learned trial Court.

On consideration of this evidence the learned trial Court, on the evidence of complainant Inder Jeet, PW-1, PW-2 Roshan Lal and PW-3 Dr. Gian Singh Thakur, Medical Officer, holds that the evidence on record establishes the case of the prosecution. Further, referring to the evidence of PW-4 Labh Singh, the Court holds that though he stated that there was a fight between two parties, but in cross-examination he admits that the complainant had been beaten up by the Petitioner and that the blow causing him injuries has infact been inflicted by the Petitioner. The defence set up that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be relied upon as they related, has rightly been rejected by the learned trial Court. It is by now well settled that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus does not apply to criminal proceedings in India. Infact, the evidence of this witness even though he has turned hostile is relied to the extent that the Petitioner had caused injuries to the complainant. One other submission was made that though one Dhan Bahadur has been cited as a witness but not produced and as such the prosecution evidence cannot be relied upon. The learned trial Court holds that he was given up because he had been won over by the opposite party. The defence evidence has been held unworthy of reliance because it is not supported by the fact situation. The register whish shows the presence of Suresh Kumar mark `B'' has been interpolated and there are number of cuttings and over-writings in it and it is admitted that the teachers can leave the school at any time. The Court notes that there are no contradictions in the evidence and though there may be discrepancies but they cannot be described as contradictions which go to the root of this case. On conclusion, it was held that all the three accused were guilty of offences for which, simple imprisonment for six months u/s 324 read with Section 34 IPC and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 500/-each for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 334 IPC were imposed and in default of payment of fine, further sentence of imprisonment was imposed.

In appeal, the learned appellate Court reappreciated the entire evidence and holds that the case against the Petitioner was established. In addition to the grounds urged before the trial Court, it was urged before the learned appellate Court that the Petitioners'' have been wrongly dragged into the case as they were innocent and the case has been falsely instituted against them. This argument was rightly rejected as the Court found that there is no evidence on the record to substantiate this plea. The learned appellate Court after reconsideration of the entire evidence dismissed the appeal.

The Petitioner is now in revision. The same points on fact, which have been addressed before the learned appellate Court, have been urged before me. I do not find that the statements of the prosecution witnesses have in any manner been misinterpreted, nor am I satisfied that the Courts below have come to a perverse conclusion. What I find from the case is that the statements of complainant PW-1 and his brother PW-2 are supported by the physical fact of the injuries having been inflicted on the complainant and on the Respondents. There is, thus, no merit in this revision which is dismissed.

On the question of sentencing, I called for the report of the Probation Officer who has stated that the Petitioner is a government servant, aged 55 years and working as a teacher in Government Senior Secondary School, Dalash. His employer has reported that his work and conduct is satisfactory. His family consists of his wife who is employed as Angawari Worker and he has two sons, one employed in the police and the other is unemployed. According to the report, the Petitioner was charged for offences in a case FIR No. 50/88, dated 24.6.1988 under Sections 279, 336 and 337 IPC and in another case FIR No. 57/93, dated 9.7.1993 for offences u/s 325 IPC, where he has been acquitted in both the cases. The only case as reported against him is the present one.

Taking into consideration the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, I also find from the report of the Station House Officer, Police Station, Anni, District Kullu, that one case FIR No. 524 of 2007, dated 16.6.2007 under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B IPC, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kullu, has been registered against Tilak Raj Verma, but it is silent as to whether the Petitioner is implicated in this case or not.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that the Petitioner be granted benefits of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

The Petitioner shall furnish a bound in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Anni, undertaking to keep the peace and good behaviour for two years, not to indulge in any anti-social and criminal activities.

He shall further undertake that in case of breach of any of these conditions or in case of his involvement in any other offence, or in case he is sentenced by a Court of competent jurisdiction, in any case, the bond shall be forfeited and he shall undergo the sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the Courts below. The Probation Officer shall also supervise the Petitioner during this period and report any violation to this Court directly as also furnished such information to the learned trial Court. The Petitioner shall undertake to appear before this Court to receive any sentence which may be imposed upon him. The bound shall be furnished within a period of four weeks from the date when this order will first presented before the trial Court.