Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Hari Pal Verma, J.
Gurmit Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1881 of 2018, 1915 of 2018, 1926 of 2018
Decided On : 24-08-2018
Common Intention - Assault on Public Servant - Sections 353, 186, 332, 506, 427 IPC - Summary: The court discussed the assault on a public servant, obstruction of official duty, causing hurt, and damage to public property under the mentioned sections of the Indian Penal Code. The court highlighted the lack of support from key witnesses, leading to doubt in the prosecution's case and ultimately resulting in the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an assault on a public servant at an Electricity Grid, leading to injuries and damage to public property. The accused were convicted based on the testimony of the complainant and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the key witnesses did not support the prosecution's version, leading to doubt in the case of the prosecution.
Issues: The issues included delay in lodging the FIR, lack of identification parade, absence of independent witnesses, and lack of support from key witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of support from key witnesses, leading to doubt in the prosecution's case and ultimately resulting in the acquittal of the accused.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgments of conviction and acquitted all the accused, extending them the benefit of doubt.
JUDGMENT
Hari Pal Verma, J. - This order shall dispose of the aforementioned three criminal revision petitions as the same have arisen from a common FIR No.71 dated 26.07.2012 under Sections 353, 186, 332, 506 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Bathinda, District Bathinda. Moreover, all the petitions have been filed against judgment dated 02.05.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda whereby three separate appeals filed by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.09.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, were dismissed.
2. However, for convenience and clarity, the detailed order is being passed in CRR No.1881 of 2018 titled as Gurmit Singh Versus State of Punjab.
3. Briefly stated, the aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of statement made by complainant Kuldeep Singh. As per the complainant, he being working as J.E. with the Electricity Board was posted at Electricity Grid, Balluana. On 23.07.2012, the petitioners-accused, namely, Gurmit Singh son of Balwinder Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and Gurmit Singh son of Jagdev Singh along with 10-15 other persons came in the Electricity Grid. While accused Lakhwinder Singh gave a Soti blow on his shoulder, accused Gurmit Singh son of Balwinder Singh gave a Soti blow on his left side above arm due to which he fell down. Then accused Lakhwinder Singh gave a Soti blow on his chest which hit on the right side of his chest and other persons gave him kick blows. However, when Angrej Singh tried to save him, all the accused gave kick blows to Angrej Singh as well. Thereafter, they dismantled the articles of Electricity Grid and while leaving the spot, all the accused threatened to kill them. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the spot along with respective weapons.
4. The matter was reported to the senior officer of the Electricity Department, who reached the spot and got admitted injured Kuldeep Singh in Civil Hospital, Bathinda. Accused Lakhwinder Singh was arrested on 13.08.2012 and Soti was recovered from his possession, whereas accused Gurmit Singh son of Balwinder Singh and Gurmit Singh son of Jagdev Singh were arrested on 14.08.2012 and Soti was taken into possession by the police.
5. After completion of investigation, Challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court. Copies of Challan, as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to the accused free of costs.
6. Finding a prima-facie case against the accused, they were charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 353, 186, 332, 506 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
7. The prosecution examined complainant-injured Kuldeep Singh as PW1, Dr. S.S. Romana as PW2, Dr. Satish Jindal as PW3, ASI Ranjodh Singh as PW4 and Angrej Singh as PW5. Besides this, documents Ex.PX1 to Ex.PX4 were also tendered into evidence.
8. Thereafter, statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC were recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence produced against them was put to them, but they denied and claimed their false implication. In defence, the accused did not adduce any evidence.
9. The point for determination before learned trial Court was as under:
"That on 23.07.2012 at about 10.00 P.M. in the area of Power Grid, Balluana, you all accused in furtherance of common intention of each other assaulted or used criminal force to Kuldeep Singh JE and Angrej Singh Assistant Lineman and caused obstruction in their official duty, who were public servants and discharging their official duties and caused hurt to Kuldeep Singh and threatened to Kuldeep Singh and also caused damage to power grid."
10. Vide impugned judgment dated 13.09.2017, learned trial Court has observed that the testimony of complainant Kuldeep Singh as PW1 lent
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
