Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, AT SHIMLA
Sanjay Karol, P.S. Rana, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Vs.
Gulzar alias Gulzari son of Shri Jaimal and others - Respondents
Cr. Appeal No.101 of 2008
Decided On : 10th October, 2014
Assault and Grievous Hurt - IPC Sections 353, 332, 333, 325 - The court examined the evidence to determine if the accused persons had assaulted the victims while they were discharging their official duty. The court found that there was no evidence to prove that the victims were discharging their official duty at the time of the incident, and therefore, the charges under Sections 353, 332, and 333 IPC were not proved. However, based on the testimonies of the victims, an independent witness, and medical evidence, the court convicted the accused for the minor offence punishable under Section 325 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The accused persons were charged with assaulting two public servants while they were discharging their official duty. It was alleged that the accused persons caused grievous hurt to the victims and illegally obtained electricity connection for a wine shop. The trial court acquitted the accused, but the State filed an appeal against the acquittal.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the oral and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution. It found that there was no evidence to prove that the victims were discharging their official duty at the time of the incident. Therefore, the charges under Sections 353, 332, and 333 IPC were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, the court found that the accused persons had caused grievous hurt to the victims, based on the testimonies of the victims, an independent witness, and medical evidence. The court convicted the accused for the minor offence punishable under Section 325 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of evidence to prove that the victims were discharging their official duty at the time of the incident, the charges under Sections 353, 332, and 333 IPC were not proved. However, based on the testimonies of the victims, an independent witness, and medical evidence, the court convicted the accused for the minor offence punishable under Section 325 IPC.
Result: The court modified the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court and convicted the accused for the minor offence punishable under Section 325 IPC. The court ordered the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the convicted persons for their production before the court for the quantum of sentence hearing.
P.S. Rana, J.
Present appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge (II) Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions trial No. 14-G/VII of 2003 titled State of H.P. vs. Gulzar @ Gulzari and others.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE:
2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by prosecution are that on dated 15.5.2002 at about 7.30 PM at Dhwala accused persons in furtherance of common intention assaulted Amarjeet Singh JE and Devinder Singh Foreman HPSEB Section Dhwala when they were discharging their official duty as public servants. It is alleged by prosecution that on the same date time and place accused persons caused grievous hurt to Amarjeet Singh JE and Devinder Singh Foreman HPSEB Section Dhwala when they were discharging their official duty as public servants. It is further alleged by prosecution that accused persons took the electricity connection from the residential house to the wine shop in illegal manner. It is further alleged by prosecution that injured Amarjeet Singh registered FIR Ext.PW4/A and during investigation broken pieces of bottle Ext.P1 took into possession vide seizure memo and it is further alleged by prosecution that pieces of electrical wire also took into possession vide seizure memo. It is further alleged by prosecution that during investigation vehicle No. HP-36-5786 was also took into possession vide seizure memo and spot map was also prepared at the spot. It is further alleged by prosecution that appointment and posting orders of injured also took into possession.
3. Accused persons were charged by learned Sessions Judge Court No. II Kangra at Dharamshala on dated 22.5.2004 under Sections 353 read with Section 34 IPC, 332 read with Section 34 IPC and 333 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 39 of the Electricity Act. Accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined the following witnesses in support of its case :-
Sr.No. Name of Witness
PW1 Dr. Puran Chand
PW2 Dr. Arun Sharma
PW3 Dr. Suman Dhiman
PW4 Amarjeet Singh
PW5 Devinder Singh
PW6 Kikkar Singh
PW7 Vinod Kumar
PW8 Sarveen Kumar
PW9 C.S. Chawla
PW10 Inspector Daulat Ram
DW1 Kamal Kis hore
4.1 Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in su pport of its case :-
Sr.No. Description:
Ex.PW1 /A. MLC of Amarjit Singh
Ex.PW2 /A. MLC of Devinder Singh
Ex.PW3/A X-ray form
Ex.PW3 /B Skigram of Amarjit Singh
Ex.PW3 /C Skigram of Devinder Singh
Ex.PW3 /D Skigram of Devinder Singh
Ex.PW4/A FIR
Ex.PW7 /A Seizure memo
Ex.PW7/B Seizure memo
Ext.PW8 /A. Seizure memo
Ex t.PW9/A Appointment and posting order of Amarjit Singh
Ext.PW9/B Appointment and posting order of Devinder Singh
Ex.PW9/C Photocopy of appointment of Amarjit Singh
Ext.PW9/D Photocopy of appointment of Devinder Singh
Ext.PW9/E Letter
Ext.DX Application
Ext.PW10/B Application
Ext.PW10/C Application
Ext.PW10/B Spot map
5. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have stated that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. They have produced one witness in defence. Learned trial Court acquitted all the accused of the charges framed against them.
6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment passed by learned Trial Court State of H.P. filed present appeal under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of H.P. and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents and also perused the entire record carefully.
8. Question that arises in present appeal is whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and whether learned trial Court had committed miscarriage of justice as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal.
ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION:
9.1. PW1 Dr. Puran Chand has stated that in the year 2002 he remained posted in Sub Division Hospital Dehra and on dated 15.5.20
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
