The prosecution must establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused intentionally caused grievous hurt to a public servant while discharging their duty; eyewitness testimony can validate the conviction despite procedural lapses.

JUDGMENT :

ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.09.2001 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, 8th Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in connection with the Sessions Case No.32 of 1999 arising out of Sessions Trial No.3 of September, 2000 convicting the appellant under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default to further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and fine be deposited to the Trial Court on or before expiry of 3 weeks from the date of order and the Trial Court do arrange to pay the said compensation to the victim with 15 days from the date of deposit of such fine.

2. The prosecution case precisely stated on 09.12.1998 a Traffic Constable was on duty at Beat No.52 (Theatre Road Rowdon Street Crossing) from 11:00 hrs., to till 17:00 hrs. At about 15:25 hrs., the said constable found a motor cycle coming in high speed along with the Rowdon Street violating the one way system which North to South while the motor cyclist was coming from South to North. As such he tried to stop him but the appellant dodged him and threatened to come back again for teaching him a good lesson. At about 16:35 hrs., the motor cyclist came back leaving his motor cycle elsewhere. Immediately, the appellant pounced on the traffic constable and started assaulting him with his Helmet. Thereafter, the appellant caught hold of the victim right hand and twisted it with all his force and hit on the hand with his Helmet. The victim tried to save himself but could not succeed, then some local persons rescued him from his clutch and handed over the appellant to the traffic patrolling sergeant.

3. Based on the aforesaid complaint, the Park Street Police Station Case No.727 dated 09.12.1998 was initiated for investigation.

4. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited certain documents while the defence had examined none.

6. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant submitted as follows:-

i. There being no contemporaneous records before the trial court, showing that the PW-1, a police sergeant was on duty at the place of occurrence, the evidence of PW-1 had no credential.

ii. Admittedly a pocket book was maintained by the Traffic Constable and number of vehicles was noted there on which violates traffic rules and no such pocket book being produced before the Trial Court, as such it was never proved that the PW-2 was allegedly assaulted by the appellant with intent to deter or prevent him being a public servant from lawful discharging his duty as such the conviction of the appellant liable to be set aside.

iii. The evidence of the PW-2 was wholly unworthy of credit inasmuch as the said witness failed to disclose the details as regards h is admission at the hospital and about his treatment as well as who was the Officer-in-Charge of South Division, how many constables were posted at the traffic point of Shakespeare Sarani and Rowdon Street Crossing, who allotted him duties on that day.

iv. PW-2 in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure not having mentioned the place of occurrence was the crossing of Shakespeare Sarani and Rowdon Street and as regards the manner of assault and the nature of injury his deposition as regards to the same had no evidentiary value and could