Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 3 docs
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 333 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860

User Queries
Uttaranchal High Court
Pooran Singh Rawat vs State on 24 June, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1227 of 2001

(Old No.1484 of 1990)

Pooran Singh Rawat S/o Sachendra Singh Rawat, R/o Vill. Nawar-Khera (Gola-par), P.O. Kathgodam, P.S. Haldwani, District Nainital

............... Appellant

Versus

The State .............. Respondent

Dated: June 24, 2008

Sri R.S. Sammal, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. G.A. for the State

HON. DHARAM VEER, J.

This criminal appeal, preferred u/s 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.07.1990 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No.12 of 1990, whereby the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant-Puran Singh Rawat under Section 333 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as I.P.C.) and sentenced him to three years R.I. Co-accused Dev Ram was acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 353/332/333 IPC.

2. I have heard Sri R.S. Sammal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Harish Pujari, learned Additional G.A. for the State and perused the entire material available on record.

3. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 4.5.1989 at about 4:00 P.M., complainant Sher Singh was posted for supervision of the water flowing in the irrigation canal and he was accompanied by Bhuwan Chandra, Home Guard and Umesh Chandra, Canal Sweeper (Jamandar). When they 2

were on patrolling duty to check the theft of water and as soon as they reached at the Nawadkhera TASH (controller of water on a canal), then they saw the appellant Puran Singh Rawat along with one another person, who had come on a scooter. Thereafter, the appellant along with his companion started to take water illegally by opening the TASH. When the complainant Sher Singh stopped them to do so, then the appellant, being armed with an irod rod and his accomplice, who was armed with a Danda, started beating the complainant and his companions. On hearing the noise made by complainant, Kishori Lal, Assistant Company Commander and P.C. Puran Chandra, started running towards the place of occurrence. After seeing those persons coming, appellant and his companion ran away from the place of occurrence by scooter. It was also averted that due to this reason, complainant received several injuries and his another companion home guard also received injuries. It was also averted that the appellant and his accomplice intervened while discharging of official duty by the complainant Sher Singh. With the same averments, the FIR was lodged by Sher Singh on 4.5.1989, that FIR is Ex.Ka-1. On the basis of this FIR, Chik FIR was prepared by Head Moharrir Jai Kishan Tiwari, that Chik FIR is Ex.Ka-5. The FIR of the incident was lodged in the police station on 4.5.1989 at 7:30 P.M. at P.S. Haldwani, Distt. Nainital. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is about 5½ kilometers. The entry was also made in the G.D., the copy of G.D. is Ex.Ka-7. The investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Rishipal Singh. Thereafter, the injured Sher Singh was medically examined by the Medical Officer (Emergency) Civil Hospital, Haldwani on 4.5.1989 at 7:50 P.M., his injury report is Ex.Ka-4. The x-ray of injured Sher Singh was also conducted and x-ray report was also prepared, i.e. Ex.Ka-3. Another injured Bhuwan Chand was also medically examined on 4.5.1989 at 8:00 P.M. and his 3

injury report was also prepared, i.e. Ex.Ka-2. During the course of investigation, the I.O. prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence i.e. Ex.Ka-8. The case was initially registered in the police station as Case Crime No.383/1989 u/s 332/353 IPC. After receiving the X-ray report, the I.O. converted the case on 8.5.1989 u/s 333 IPC vide G.D. Report No.9, the copy of G.D. is Ex.Ka-9. During the course of investigation, the I.O. prepared the site plan and also recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet against the appellant/accused Pooran Singh Rawat and another co-accused Dev Ram (acquitted by the trial court) u/s 353/332/333 IPC, the charge sheet is Ex.Ka-6.

4. After receiving the charge sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani committed the case to the court of Sessions on 9.1.1990 under section 209 Cr.P.C. after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The learned Sessions Judge has transferred the case to the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital for hearing and disposal according to law.

6. On 20.04.1990, the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital framed the charge against the appellant Pooran Singh & co-accused Dev Ram (acquitted by the trial court) u/s 353/332/333 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant and another co-accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Sher Singh, complainant and the eyewitness of the case, P.W.2 Bhuvan Chandra, injured witness, P.W.3 Kishori Lal, Assistant Company Commander & eyewitness and P.W.4 Umesh Chandra.

4

8. The genuineness of the documents i.e. medical report of Bhuwan Chand i.e. Ex.Ka-2, X-ray report Ex.Ka-3 and medical report Ex.Ka-4 in respect of Sher Singh, Chik FIR Ex.Ka-5, charge sheet Ex.Ka-6, copy of G.D. i.e. Ex.Ka-7 by which the case of the complainant was registered in the G.D., site plan of the place of occurrence i.e. Ex.Ka-8 and copy of the G.D. Ex.Ka-9, was also admitted by the defence counsel.

9. Thereafter, the statements of the appellant and another co-accused were recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. The oral and documentary evidence was put to them in question form. They have denied the allegations made against them. However, they did not produce any oral or documentary evidence in their defence.

10. After appreciating the evidence on record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital vide his judgment and order dated 23.07.1990 convicted the appellant-Pooran Singh Rawat under Section 333 IPC and sentenced him to three years R.I. Co-accused Dev Ram was acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 353/332/333 IPC. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 23.07.1990, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

11. Before further discussion, it is pertinent to mention the injuries found in the injury report (Ex.Ka-4) on the person of injured Sher Singh who was examined on 4.5.1989 at 7:50 P.M. by Medical Officer (Emergency) Civil Hospital, Haldwani, which are reproduced as under: -

1. Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm and swelling 18 cm x 11 cm on the front of right leg in the middle 2/3 part. Advised x-ray for suspected fracture of bones underneath.

2. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1/4 cm x skin deep on the front of the left leg in the middle 1/3 part. 5

3. Abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on the dorsal aspect of left elbow joint.

4. C/o pain on the upper part of left upper arm. No external injury was seen.

The doctor also opined that injuries were simple and caused by blunt weapon except injury no.1 which is advised x-ray and is kept under observation. The duration of injuries was opined within 6 hours.

Thereafter, the X-ray on the person of Sher Singh was also conducted on 5.5.1989 at Department of Radiology, Civil Hospital, Haldwani, Distt. Nainital and X-ray report Ex.Ka.3 was also prepared. The following report was given by the doctor who conducted the x-ray on the person of Sher Singh: -

"X-ray plate No.129/89 dated 5/5/1989, x-ray right leg. A.P. & lateral view shows fracture of tibia, upper 1/3 as marked in x-ray film".

12. Injured Bhuwan Chand was also medically examined by the Medical Officer (Emergency) Civil Hospital, Haldwani, Nainital on 4.5.1989 at 8:00 P.M. and injury report was also prepared i.e. Ex.Ka-2. The doctor found following injuries on his person: -

1. Abrasion 2 cm x 0.2 cm on the lateral malleolus of right leg.

2. C/o pain on the chest back, no external injury seen

3. C/o Pain on the buttocks back, no external injury seen.

The doctor also opined that injury is simple and was caused by friction. Duration of the injuries was recent. 6

13. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Sher Singh, who is the complainant and injured witness. He has stated that incident took place on 4.5.1989. On that day, he was posted as Home Guard. The time was about 4:00 P.M. He and another companion home guard Bhuwan Chand was in duty in Colava No.4 where, the TASH was opened and appellant/accused Pooran Singh Rawat and one another person were present there. He also stated that as he had not allowed the appellant-Pooran Singh Rawat to take the water illegally, therefore, appellant and his another companion beaten him. He also stated that appellant /accused Puran Singh Rawat was armed with an iron rod and another accomplice of the appellant was armed with a Danda. He also stated that he received injuries in his body. The report of the incident was dictated by him to Trilok Singh, Company Commander. He also stated that whatever he stated, that was written by Trilok Singh, that report is Ex.Ka-1. On the date and time of incident, he was in the government duty. The injuries on his body were medically examined by the Medical Officer and x-ray was also conducted. His companion Bhuwan Chandra was also beaten by appellant and another co-accused. He also stated that he was saved by the other witnesses who came on the spot and thereafter appellant and his accomplice ran away. This witness was cross-examined by the defence counsel but nothing has come out in his evidence which may create any doubt in his evidence. The evidence of this witness is reliable, believable and natural.

14. P.W.2 is Bhuwan Chand who has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile.

15. P.W.3 is Kishori Lal who has stated that on the date of occurrence, he was posted as Assistant Company Commander in Haldwani and he was in duty in Irrigation Department. The time was about 4:00 P.M. He also stated 7

that Platoon Commander Pooran was also along with him. Sher Singh and Bhuwan Chandra were also in duty at No.4 TASH. At that time, he was in duty at TASH No.2 and he reached on the place of occurrence after hearing the noise. He also stated that he saw that appellant/accused Pooran Singh Rawat and his accomplice Dev Ram were beating Bhuwan and Sher Singh due to which Sher Singh was badly injured. He also stated that appellant and his accomplice ran away from the place of occurrence on an unnumbered scooter. After arranging a vehicle, he brought both the injured persons to the officers of Department and informed them. Both the injured persons were on the duty to inspect the water and appellant/accused and his companion used to come for the theft of water. This witness was also cross- examined by the defence counsel but nothing has come out in his evidence which may create any doubt in his evidence. The evidence of this witness is also reliable, believable and natural.

16. P.W.4 is Umesh Chandra, Canal Sweeper (Jamandar) who has also not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile.

17. Thereafter, the statements of the appellant and another co-accused were recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. The oral and documentary evidence was put to them in question form and they denied the allegations made against them. However, they did not produce any oral or documentary evidence in their defence.

18. Sri R.S. Sammal, learned counsel for the appellants argued that in view of the above-said discussion, no case is made out against the appellant. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is without force as P.W.1 Sher Singh has stated in his evidence that this incident took place on 4.5.1989 and the time was about 8

4:00 P.M. He and his companion home guard Bhuwan Chand was in duty in Colava No.4 where, the TASH was opened and appellant/accused Pooran Singh Rawat and one another person were present there. He also stated that as he had not allowed the appellant-Pooran Singh Rawat to take the water illegally, therefore, appellant and his another companion beaten him. He also stated that appellant/accused Puran Singh Rawat was armed with an iron rod and another accomplice of the appellant was armed with a Danda. He also stated that he received injuries in his body. The report of the incident was dictated by him to Trilok Singh, Company Commander which is Ex.Ka-1. The injuries on his body were medically examined by the Medical Officer and x-ray was also conducted. His companion Bhuwan Chandra was also beaten by appellant and another co-accused. He also stated that he was saved by the other witnesses who came on the spot and thereafter appellant and his accomplice ran away. The evidence of P.W.1 Sher Singh is also supported by the evidence of P.W.3 Kishori Lal as well as from his injury report Ex.Ka-4 and his X-ray report Ex.Ka-3. A perusal of the X-report clearly reveals that complainant Sher Singh received fracture of tibia on his right leg. Hence, in view of the above-said discussion, it is clear that on 4.5.1989 at about 4:00 P.M., the complainant Sher Singh was beaten by the appellant/accused Pooran Singh Rawat with an iron road. The appellant/accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt in order to deter the complainant, who was a public servant, in performing his official duty and as such he has committed an offence punishable u/s 333 IPC.

19. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the evidence of P.W.1 Sher Singh does not inspire confidence. This argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is also not acceptable on the basis of the 9

above-said facts and circumstances of the case. It is settled law that quality of evidence of the single witness has to be tested on the touchstone of credibility and reliability. If the testimony is found to be reliable, there is no legal impediment to convict the accused on such proof. It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Hence, it is proved that the evidence of P.W.1 Sher Singh inspires implicit confidence and the same is cogent and reliable and the same is also supported by the evidence of P.W.3 Kishori Lal and injury report Ex.Ka-4 and X-ray report i.e. Ex.Ka-3.

20. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that P.W.3 Sher Singh has stated in his cross examination that before the incident, appellant/accused Pooran Singh was not known to him and villagers had told his name to him and no villager was examined in the court, hence the prosecution case is doubtful. This argument of learned counsel for the appellant is also not acceptable. As per the evidence discussed above, as the evidence of P.W.1 Sher Singh is cogent and reliable and he has given the statement in the court against the appellant/accused Puran Singh Rawat. Further, the appellant is named in the FIR and the FIR has been lodged just after 3½ hours of the incident. In this case, the incident was happened on 4.5.1989 at 4:00 P.M. and the FIR of the case was lodged on the same day at 7:30 P.M. in the police station and the distance of police station from the place of occurrence is 5½ kilometers. Soon thereafter, the complainant Sher Singh was examined on the same day at 7:50 P.M. by the Medical Officer (Emergency) Civil Hospital, Haldwani, Nainital. As such the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable.

21. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has been successful in proving 10

its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt u/s 333 IPC and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the trial court in convicting and sentencing the appellant u/s 333 IPC for 3 years R.I.

22. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal preferred by the appellant is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order dated 23.7.1990 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, is hereby affirmed.

23. Let the record of the case be sent back to the trial court concerned forthwith for compliance of the order.

(Dharam Veer, J.)

June 24, 2008

Rajeev Dang