Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJIV SHARMA, HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, JJ.
Ram Avtar And Another — Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab — Respondent
Criminal Appeal (S) No. 67, 225, 264 of 2014
Decided on : 12-09-2019
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Sections 148/353/342/332/149 IPC - [148/353/342/332/149 IPC] - The court acquitted the appellants of the charges due to lack of evidence proving their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of appellants for offences under Sections 148/353/342/332/149 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with other workers, caused injuries to police officials during a strike at a cotton mill. The prosecution's case was based on witness testimonies and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were guilty of the alleged offences. The court noted that witness testimonies were general in nature and did not specifically name the appellants as the perpetrators of the injuries. The court also highlighted the lack of evidence to prove wrongful confinement of the police personnel and intent to prevent them from discharging their duties.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants, including specific identification of the perpetrators of the alleged offences and proof of wrongful confinement and intent to prevent the police from discharging their duties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case, the prosecution failed to provide adequate evidence to establish the charges against the appellants. The court also highlighted the importance of specific identification of perpetrators and proof of intent in cases involving offences against public servants.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants of the charges and set aside the judgment and order dated 23.12.2013, giving them the benefit of doubt. The appellants were acquitted and their bail bonds and surety bonds were discharged.
JUDGMENT :
Rajiv Sharma, J.
Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals, i.e. CRA-S-67-SB of 2014, CRA-S-225-SB of 2014 and CRA-S264-SB of 2014, therefore, these are taken up together and being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. These appeals are instituted against the judgment and the order dated 23.12.2013, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, in Sessions Case No. 48 of 14.05.2003. Appellants Ram Avtar Singh, Uttam Chand Suneja, Bangali Babu Tiwari and Parmod Kumar alias Danny were charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 148/353/342/332/149 IPC.
3. Co-Accused Manohar Lal, Shanti Sarup and Jarnail Singh died during pendency of trial.
4. The appellants were convicted and sentenced as under :-
| Name of the appellant | Under Section | Sentenced to |
| Ram Avtar | 148 IPC
332/149 IPC
342/149 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. |
| Uttam Chand | 148 IPC
342/149 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. |
| Bangali Babu | 148 IPC
332/149 IPC
| Rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. |
| Parmod Kumar Danny alias Danny | 148 IPC
332/149 IPC
342/149 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. |
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
5. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 25.10.1991, ASI Narinder Pal Singh along with ASI Hardam Singh and other police officials was present on duty near Bhawani Cotton Mills, Abohar. The workers of the Mill had resorted to strike for the last 4-5 days. Master Uttam Ram, Ram Avtar, Danny and Shanti Sarup along with 2000-2500 workers were delivering speeches. They were claiming that in case their demands were not accepted by the Mill Management, they would set ablaze the Mill. They tried to enter the Mill. Shri Megh Raj, Naib Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, who was also present there, tried to persuade them for not taking the law in their own hands. The crowd started throwing brick bats
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
