In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 328 of 2001 Date of Decision:March 05, 2009 Harmesh Singh alias Kokki ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Rajeev Dhawan,Advocate, for Mr. J.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab *** SABINA, J. Harmesh Singh @ Kokki-petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 186, 353, 332 of the Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') vide judgment dated 12.6.2000 by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar. Vide the order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 300/- for offence under Section 186 IPC,was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 300/- for offence under Section 332 IPC and further rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 353 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was Crl. Revision No. 328 of 2001 -2- dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar vide judgment dated 19.2.2001. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the learned Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is as under:- “On 19.2.1997, after noon, Satpal Singh SDO Head Works, Ropar accompanied by J.E. And other employees visited the property of canal department opposite J.R.Theatre, Ropar for removing the encroachment. They tried to remove the encroachment. Then Harmesh Singh alias Kokki, who is owner of King Kong Dhaba and had made the encroachment, misbehaved with government officers/officials. He also abused them and tried to attack them with a sword. In this way, he obstructed the performance of duty by the public servant. When S.D.O. Along with his staff members returned, accused is also alleged to have beaten up Dharam Chand Beldar of canal department and also threatened to kill him. SDO made complaint Ex. PA to SHO City Ropar. Thereupon, a case under sections 186, 353, 332 and 196 IPC was registered at PS city Ropar on 19.2.1997 at 8.50 p.m. After completing the formalities of investigation, challan was presented in the court. Accused was charge sheeted under Section 186, 353 and 332 IPC. On recording plea, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no independent witness has joined during investigation. There was no material Crl. Revision No. 328 of 2001 -3- on record to suggest that the injured was a public servant.Occurrence had taken place on 19.2.1997 whereas the alleged injured was medically examined on 20.2.1997. Doctor had opined that the possibility that the injuries were self-suffered, could not be ruled out. Learned State counsel on the other hand has submitted that Satpal Singh, Sub Divisional Officer, Head Works, Ropar-PW-1 accompanied by Junior Engineer and other employees had visited the property of canal department and were removing the encroachments. During the said period, petitioner inflicted injuries on the person of Dharam Chand-PW-3, who was working as Beldar with the canal department. Occurrence in the present case had taken place on 19.2.1997 in the afternoon while Satpal Singh, Sub Divisional Officer, Head Works, Ropar, who was accompanied by Junior Engineer and other employees were removing the encroachments. Petitioner misbehaved with them and abused them. He obstructed the officials from performing their duties as public servants. Petitioner also inflicted injury on the person of Dharam Chand-Beldar. Prosecution in order to prove its case has examined PW-1 Satpal Singh, Sub Divisional Officer, PW-2, Gurmit Singh and injured PW- 3-Dharam Chand. They have duly proved the prosecution case regarding the misbehavior and obstructions by the petitioner while they were performing their official duty. Both PW-1 and PW-2 have deposed that the injury on the person of PW-3- Dharam Chand was not caused in their presence. PW-3- Dharam Chand, injured himself has duly proved the injury caused on his person by the petitioner. The testimony of PW-3 is duly corroborated by the medical evidence. Doctor-R.K.Gupta, while appearing Crl. Revision No. 328 of 2001 -4- in the witness box has deposed with regard to the injury on the person of PW-3-Dharam Chand. Doctor had further deposed that the time between injury and examination was within 24 hours. PW-3 had no enmity against the petitioner and had no reason to involve him falsely in this case. PW-1 and PW-3 being the employees of canal department were obstructed by the petitioner from doing their duty of removal of encroachments on the government property. In these circumstances, the appellate court had rightly held that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Accordingly the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 332, 353, 186 IPC is maintained. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is facing criminal proceedings since the year, 1997, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner with regard to Sections 332, 353 IPC is reduced from one year to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The fine qua offence under Section 186 and 332 IPC is enhanced from Rs. 300/- to Rs.1000/- each. With these modifications, this petition stands disposed of. (SABINA) JUDGE March 05, 2009 PARAMJIT