Back
2009 Supreme(HP) 346
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURJIT SINGH, J.
STATE OF H.P.
Petitioner
VERSUS
ZAKIR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS
Respondent
JAKIR HUSSAIN
Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HP.
Respondent
Cr. Appeal No.76 of 2002 and Cr. Revision No. 91 of 2006
Decided on 20-4-2009
For the appellant :Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate
S/Shri R.S. Gautam and J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocates in Cr. Revision No. 91 of 2006.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate in Cr. Appeal No. 76 of 2002 and Mr.
Ramesh Thakur Assistant Advocate General in Cr. Revision No.91 of 2006.
The main legal point established is the reliance on corroborated evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports, to uphold a conviction under Section 324 IPC.
Headnote:
Assault - Criminal Law - Section 324 IPC, Section 332 IPC - The judgment discusses the conviction of the accused under Section 324 IPC instead of Section 332 IPC. It also addresses the acquittal of the two accomplices of the accused. The court analyzes the evidence, medical reports, and witness testimonies to uphold the conviction under Section 324 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves an assault on a police constable by the accused and two others. The constable was allegedly affronted and assaulted, resulting in injuries. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 324 IPC, and the state appealed against the acquittal of the two accomplices and the accused's acquittal under Section 332 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the state's appeal, as the evidence did not prove the involvement of the two accomplices beyond reasonable doubt. The court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 324 IPC based on corroborated testimonies and medical evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the assault on the constable, the involvement of the accused and his accomplices, and the application of relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the corroborated testimony of the constable, telephonic information, and medical evidence to uphold the conviction under Section 324 IPC. It also dismissed the accused's revision, emphasizing the seriousness of the injury and the lack of merit in the defense's submissions.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 324 IPC, directing the accused to surrender to serve the sentence.
Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral):-By this judgment it is proposed to dispose of Criminal Revision No.91 of 2006, filed by Jakir Hussain, hereinafter called accused, as also Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2002, filed by the State against the judgment dated 8.6.2001 of the trial Court, whereby accused Jakir Hussain has been convicted of offence, under Section 324 IPC instead of offence, under Section 332 IPC, with which he was charged and two more persons charged and tried alongwith him, have been acquitted.
2. Relevant facts may be summed up thus. Police filed a report, under Section 173 Cr. P.C. against accused Jakir Hussain and two other persons, under Sections 341, 353 and 332 read with Section 34 IPC alleging that on 1.10.1999 around 8.15 PM, when PW-8 Constable Prem Singh, posted at Ramshahar Police Station, was returning to his quarter, he was affronted by Jakir Hussain and one more unnamed person, near bus stand. They asked said Prem Singh why he had falsely implicated them in police cases. When PW-8 Prem Singh told them that he had not implicated anybody in any criminal case, accused Jakir Hussain allegedly hit him on the head with a rod, which caused a bleeding injury and the other man tore his uniform shirt and also dealt fist and kick blows. PW-8 Prem Singh cried for help, on hearing which, PW-4 Mehar Chand, a Home Guard Volunteer and PW5 Chet Ram, a Constable, who were on patrol duty, reached the scene. On seeing the said two witnesses, accused and his accomplice took to heels. Police was informed telephonically by PW-2 Babu Ram around 8.30 PM. A Head Constable, from Police Station Ram Shahar, was deputed, who recorded the statement of Prem Singh (PW8), under Section 154 Cr. P.C. which is Ext.P5. On the basis of this statement, case was formally registered, vide FIR Ext. P3. Prem Singh was taken to hospital where he was medically examined. Three injuries were found on his person. One of the injuries was clean cut edged wound measuring ½ x 8 cm on the left parietal region of scalp. It was bleeding profusedly. Doctor found loss of about 500 ml of blood. Two contusions, one on the right side of scapular region and another on the medial aspect of right knee were also noticed. All the three injuries were opined to be simple in nature. These were opined to have been caused by a sharp weapon. On completion of investigation, police challaned the accused and two more persons, named Mohinder Pal and Amar Chand.
3. Defence taken by the accused and his accomplices was that PW-8 Prem Singh had been purchasing eggs from the Rehdi of Mohinder Pal, one of the accomplices of accused Jakir Hussain, on credit basis and when said Mohinder Pal demanded money, he (PW8) falsely implicated him and the present accused and one more person, in the present case.
4. Trial Court did not believe the defence version. It held that accused Jakir Hussain had caused injury on the head of PW-8 Prem Singh by means of a rod and thereby committed an offence, under Section 324 IPC. Trial Court rejected the prosecution plea that this was a case of voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such or in consequence of his having done or attempted to do something in the discharge of his duty as public servant. The two accomplices of the accused were acquitted. State has appealed against the acquittal of the two accomplices of the accused as also against his acquittal, under Section 332 IPC.
5. Trial Court after convicting the accused sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.
6. Accused went in appeal against his conviction and sentence to the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge dismissed his appeal. So, the accused has filed revision in this Court against his conviction and sentence, as aforesaid.
7. As regards the appeal filed by the State, I find no merit in it. As
