Crl. Rev. No. 1293 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Date of decision:- March 21, 2011 1. Crl. Rev. No. 1293 of 2005 Gopal Krishan @ Ram Gopal ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent 2. Crl. Rev. No. 1294 of 2005 Om Dutt Joshi ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. R.S.Athwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. P.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The petitioner/accused-Gopal Krishan had been running a shop under the name G.K.Petha Corner at Jalandhar and electric connection No.P-22/0175/NRS was installed in that shop in the name of Ram Lubhaya. On 31.5.1994, Mohan Singh Saini, Executive Engineer (Enforcement) P.S.E.B Jalandhar, checked this electric connection and found the seals of the electric meter tampered. A number of persons collected there, who started abusing that officier. Under the pressure of that mob he did not remove that electric connection and sealed the electric meter in a box. It was revealed from the records maintained in the office that this consumer Crl. Rev. No. 1293 of 2005 -2- was consuming a load of 3.3 K.W against the sanctioned load of 0.5 K.W. On 1.6.1994, this accused accompanied by three-four persons came to the office of Mr. Kundra, Superintending Engineer (Distribution). He was told by that Superintending Engineer that his connection will be re-connected only on the payment of 1/3rd of the amount, which he was required to deposit. Instead of depositing that amount that accused brought a mob of more than 150 persons to the office of Electricity Board on 2.6.1994. That accused along with the mob abused Mohan Singh Saini and entered his office after giving threats to kill him. However that officer was not present in his office. Thereafter this mob entered the room of Director Enforcement (J.S.Grewal) and wrongly confined him at that place. Mr. A.K.Kundra Executive Engineer and H.M.Jain In-charge came to the spot in order to make the mob to understand the correct things, but the mob used abusive language for those officers. Mr. Jain was assaulted with the help of paper weight by Om Dutt Joshi accused and fist blow was given by that accused on the face of Mr. Jain. A threat was extended to that officer that they would throw him out of the room along with his chair. This mob mis- handled those officers. On account of the mis-handling and assault of the officers, Mohan Singh Saini suffered a mental shock which resulted in heart-attack and he was admitted in Tagore Hospital, Jalandhar, where he died on 6.6.1994. An application, under the signatures of all the above said officers of the Board, Ex.PA was made to the S.S.P, which was forwarded by the Secretary of that Board. The S.P was directed to enquire into the matter and to proceed in accordance with law. The S.P came to the Crl. Rev. No. 1293 of 2005 -3- conclusion that offences under Sections 147, 186, 353 and 506 were made out and that FIR be registered. Thereafter, FIR Ex. PA/2 was recorded under the aforesaid Sections. The investigation was conducted by Inderjit Singh Randhawa SHO PW4. He went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same prepared the rough site plan Ex. PB with correct marginal notes. He collected the documents, including the certificate dated 26.9.1994 issued by Tagore Hospital regarding the death of Mohan Singh Saini on 6.6.1994, and the promotion and transfer order of that officer dated 4.11.1991. He recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C and after the completion of investigation, the challan was put in before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the petitioners/accused committed offences punishable under Sections 353/34, 506, 147 and 186 IPC. They were charged accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove their guilt the prosecution examined Darshan Singh Sr. Executive Engineer PW1, Harinder Mohan Jain, Chief Engineer PW2, Baldev Singh Sekhon Addl. Superintending Engineer PW3, Inderjit Singh Randhawa SHO PW4 and Ram Kumar Manager Tagore Hospital PW5. After the evidence of the prosecution was closed, the accused were examined by the trial Court and their statements were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They denied all those circumstances and pleaded their false implication. It was stated by Gopal Krishan that on 25.5.1994 one of the official of the Electricity Board came Crl. Rev. No. 1293 of 2005 -4- to his shop and told that Mohan Singh Saini Executive Engineer had asked for five packs of petha mithai. That official was told by his nephew Anu Gupta that either the price thereof be paid in cash or he should bring chit of Mr. Saini. On that the official got enraged and left the shop. On 31.4.1994, Mr. Saini along with one SDO came to his shop and abused him and also disconnecting his electric connection. On 2.6.1994 he along with Om Dutt Joshi, Satish Malhotra and others went to A.K.Kundra and disclosed all these facts and that officer took them to the Chief Engineer. After hearing them a new meter was installed in his shop and Chief Engineer also regretted the inconvenience caused to them. When Mr. Saini came to know that the electric connection disconnected by him has been restored, he got a shock and as a result thereof died on 6.6.1994 and thereafter the present case was got lodged by the officers of the Board to save their own skin. It was stated by Om Dutt Joshi that on 2.6.1994 he had accompanied Gopal Krishan to A.K.Kundra S.E, who after hearing them had reconnected the electric connection. The accused were called upon to enter on their defence, but they did not produce any evidence in their defence. After going through the evidence so produced on the record, hearing Assistant P.P for the State and learned defence counsel for the accused, the JMIC, Jalandhar convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 353, 506 and 147 IPC, vide his judgment dated 23.4.2005 and sentenced them as under:- Under Section Sentence Fine Indefault 353 IPC S.I for three months `100/- each S.I for seven days 506 IPC S.I for one months ---- ----- 147 IPC S.I for three months `100/- each S.I for seven days Crl. Rev. No. 1293 of 2005 -5- Against that conviction and sentence they preferred joint appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment dated 15.7.2005. Now the above noted revisions have been filed by these petitioners/accused against that conviction and sentence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. While assailing the finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the accused that there is delay of six days in lodging the FIR, which, in the circumstances of the present case, itself is fatal to the prosecution. It cannot be said that any offence under Section 353 IPC stands proved as no documentry evidence was produced by the prosecution for proving that the said persons, who were so assaulted, were public servants. He also submitted that as per the prosecution version the offences were committed by a mob consisting of more then 150 persons, but neither the names of other members of the mob were disclosed nor any one of them were challaned in this case, which makes the prosecution case doubtful. He also prayed that in case the conviction of the accused is to be maintained, they be released on probation, being first offenders. On the other hand, it has been submitted by learned State counsel that the delay in lodging the FIR stands explained satisfactorily. The complainants might not have taken any action in the matter had one of their colleague not died as a result of the acts committed by the accused. It was only after the death of Mr. Saini that the FIR was got lodged. There may not be any documentary evidence on the record for proving that the persons, Crl. Rev. No. 1293 of 2005 -6- who were so assaulted by the mob, were the public servants, but there is convincing oral evidence on the record for proving that fact. It was not possible for those officers to identify any other member of the mob as they came into contact with them only on the day of occurrence and they were not known to them previously. However, it stands proved from the evidence produced by the prosecution that both the accused were members of unlawful assembly who committed the offence of roiting and assaulted the public servants in order to deter them from discharging their official duties and also criminally intermidated them. There is no ground for acquitting them or releasing them on probation, keeping in view the nature of offences involved. After having gone through the records of the case I have come to the conclusion that there is no ground for interfering in the findings so recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court. Both the accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, themselves have stated that they had gone to the office of Punjab State Electricity Board at Shakti Sadan, Jalandhar, on 2.6.1994 and at that time they were accompanied by other persons also. According to them the electric connection so disconnected by Mr. Saini was restored. They have failed to produce any evidence for proving that fact. It is very much clear from the contents of the FIR that the criminal machinery was set in motion only after Mr. Saini died on 6.6.1994, as a result of the shock suffered by him, though the accused have given different cause for that shock. The prosecution case is based upon the statements of higher ranked officers of the Electricity Crl. Rev. No. 1293 of 2005 -7- Board, who had no animus to depose against the accused. It cannot be said that they made false statements only on account of their sentiments after the death of Mr. Saini, who was just a subordinate to them and was not an officer of equal rank. In this case the facts are such that the delay in lodging the FIR itself is neither fatel to the prosecution nor can be said to be a circumstance so as to come to the conclusion that intervening period had been utilised for concocting a false story or for falsly implicating the accused. Even the plea of the accused fits in the story so put forward by the prosecution. It has been correctly pointed out by learned counsel for the accused that statement of Darshan Singh PW1 is not admissible in evidence, as his cross-examination was deferred and thereafter he never entered the witness box to face his cross-examination. However, there are cogent, convincing and consistent statements of Harjinder Mohan Jain Chief Engineer PW2 and Baldev Singh Sekhon Addl. Superintending Engineer PW3. Both of them deposed about each and every fact which consitute the prosecution version. Nothing has crept during their cross-examination which may create any doubt in the version put forward by them or which may make their version unworthy of belief. There is no dispute about the fact that no documentary evidence was produced by the prosecution for proving that they were public servants but that fact was never challenged during their cross-examination. It has come out during the cross- examination of Baldev Singh PW3 that in those days his office was situated on the first floor of the building of Shakti Sadan. The way in which the Crl. Rev. No. 1293 of 2005 -8- accused cross-examined them, it can be easily held that the accused had the knowledge that both of them were employed in the Electricity Board. They fall within the definition of "Public Servant" as contained in Section 21 IPC. It does not lie in the mouth of the accused to allege that the proseucution failed to prove that they were public servants. The non-disclosing of the names of other members of the mob or the non-challaning them cannot be made a ground for acquitting the accused. It is very much clear from the statement of the said prosecution witnesses that the other members of the mob were not known to them. Therefore, they could not have disclosed their names. However, from their statements it stands proved that the accused were members of the mob of more then 150 persons and they were members of unlawful assembly. On the basis of their statements, it was correctly concluded by the trial Court that the accused as members of the mob consisting of more then 150 persons assaulted them in order to deter them from discharging their official duties as public servants. They also criminally intermidated them. Being the members of the unlawful assembly they committed the offence of roiting. There is no ground for upsetting the well reasoned finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court. The circumstancesof the case are such that this Court does not think it proper and expedient to release the petitioners on probation though they may be first offenders. This mob mentality must be stopped. If this Country has suffered on account of the damaging and destroying the private and public properties, it was mainly on account of the mobs. If the police Crl. Rev. No. 1293 of 2005 -9- and executive authorities have failed in their duty to control such unruly mobs, why the judiciary shall fail? In such like cases if the guilt of any member of such unlawful assembly is proved, he must be dealt with deterrently. There is no merit in these revision petitions. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. The accused be taken into custody for undergoing the sentence so imposed upon them. Records be returned forthwith. March 21, 2011 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge