Back
2010 Supreme(HP) 1161
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SURINDER SINGH, J.
Hem Singh And Another - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 215 of 2004
Decided on : 05-10-2010
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reclassification of the offence based on the nature of the assault and the applicability of the relevant section of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Assault on Public Servant - Section 333, Section 332 - [325, 34] - The court set aside the conviction and sentence under Sections 333 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code and held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for assaulting a medical officer while he was discharging his official duties in a hospital. The appellants were alleged to have hurled abuses and physically assaulted the medical officer, resulting in injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the medical officer was not an aggressor and was not discharging official duties when he was assaulted. The court set aside the original conviction and held the appellants guilty under a different section of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the assault, the official duties of the medical officer, and the credibility of witness testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the assault constituted the offence punishable under a different section of the Indian Penal Code, based on the evidence presented and the circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The court set aside the original conviction and sentenced the appellants for the offence punishable under a different section of the Indian Penal Code, imposing a fine and compensation to be paid to the victim.
JUDGMENT :
SURINDER SINGH, J.
1. The appellants were tried and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 333 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 333 of the Indian Penal Code and one month and fine of Rs. 3,000/- u/s 332 of the Indian Penal Code with default clauses, hence the present appeal.
2. The appellants were tried on the allegations that on 29th October, 1999 at about 3.20 p.m., PW1 Dr. Chaman Lal, Medical Officer posted in PHC Bagsaid was discharging his official duties in his office. It is alleged that prior to the alleged incident, father of appellant Pushap Raj and his brother had also picked up a quarrel with BMO Dr. Dinesh Sharma, who had lodged a reported against them. At about 3.30 p.m., he was attracted by the noise coming from outside the hospital campus. When he came out, he noticed the appellants, who were drunk, calling the bad names to Dr. Dinesh Sharma, the then Block Medical Officer (BMO). PW1 Dr. Chaman Lal desisted them from making the noise in the hospital campus, but despite that they continued hurling the abuses. On this, Dr. Chaman Lal went nearer to them, but the appellants gave kick blows and fisticuffed him, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on his left eye, lip and teeth. Thereafter, PW2 Mohinder Singh, Pharmacist, PW5 Shakuntla Sharma, Staff Nurse and one Hem Singh (not examined) reached on the spot, removed Dr. Chaman Lal for treatment. The appellants had escaped from the place of incident.
3. Police visited hospital on the information given by some person and recorded the statement Ex.PW1/A of Dr. Chaman Lal u/s 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which culminated into FIR Ex.PW4/A.
4. Police took up the investigation of the case, prepared site plan Ex.PW7/A, applied to the Block Medical Officer, PHC Bagsaid, for the medical examination of the injured and obtained MLC Ex. PW6/A. PW6 Dr. Kuldeep Sharma had noticed the following injuries on the person of injured Dr. Chaman Lal:
(i) Black eye left;
(ii) Contusion with abrasion on upper lip left side on mucosal surface; and
(iii) Lower medial incisor on left side had loosened, no active bleeding from gum margins was present.
5. The injured doctor was referred to the Dental Surgeon of Zonal Hospital, Mandi for the expert opinion with respect to injury No. 3. As per the expert opinion, the said injury was found to be grievous in nature as tooth No. 31 was found dislocated from the socket and another tooth fractured. Police also took into possession the posting order Ex. PW3/A of Dr. Chaman Lal at PHC Bagsaid (Mandi) vide memo Ex.PW3/B.
6. After completing the investigation, police came to the conclusion that the appellants were responsible for the offences aforesaid, as such prepared the challan u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and presented in the court for their trial.
7. The appellants were charge-sheeted for the offences aforesaid. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Chaman Lal injured-complainant, PW2 Mohinder Singh Pharmacist, PW5 Smt. Shakuntla Sharma, Staff Nurse, PW6 Dr. Kuldeep Sharma, who had initially examined the injured, PW8 Dr. Jaya Ram Kaundal, Dental Surgeon and PW7 the Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector, Police Station Gohar, District Mandi, besides examining other formal witnesses.
8. The appellants were also examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the circumstances which were found attendant upon them. They took up the stand that the case was foisted upon them because of inimical relations as they had made complaints against the doctors to the local MLA for not performing their duties properly.
9. The appellants were called upon to enter into their defence. They did not lead any evidence in defence. The learned Court below disbelieved the defence version and at the end of trial, they were convicted and s
