IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 543 of 2003 Date of Decision : March 05, 2010 Ramjan and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate Ms. Shalini Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana T.P.S. MANN, J. The instant revision is directed against the conviction and sentences of the petitioners for the offences under Sections 186, 332 and 353 read with Section 34 IPC, as recorded by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nuh and upheld in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. According to the prosecution, Narain Dass, Traffic Manager, Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon, alongwith police force, was present at Bus Stand, Tauru on 3.7.1995 as per the instructions of the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon Depot. At about 3.00 p.m. one mini bus bearing registration No. RRF-6994 was found parked at the said bus stand. The bus was facing towards Nuh. The driver and Crl. Revision No. 543 of 2003 -2- conductor of the said bus were making passengers to board the bus. On checking they were found to be not carrying any documents. The bus was taken into possession and the checking staff proceeded towards Gurgaon. In the meantime, two jeeps loaded with 30/35 persons armed with lathis, knives and rods came and stopped the bus. They started pelting stones besides giving lathi blows to Satbir Singh and Constable Raj Kumar. Their clothes were torn. The mini bus was taken away by them while leaving therefrom. They also threatened the checking staff. It was learnt that the jeeps were driven by Jom Khan and Juber Khan whereas Usman, Wahid and Ramzan alongwith others had come with them. On the basis of an application submitted by Narain Dass, Traffic Manager, FIR No. 120 dated 4.7.1995 was registered at Police Station Tauru for offences under Sections 332, 335, 427, 506 and 186 IPC. During investigation of the case, statements of the witnesses were recorded and site-plan prepared. The two jeeps used by the accused and the mini bus snatched by them were taken into possession. Final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented against the petitioners. On 2.12.1996, the trial Court framed charges for offences under Sections 186, 332, 353, 427 and 506 IPC against the petitioners, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Baney Crl. Revision No. 543 of 2003 -3- Singh as PW1, Ram Parkash, Sub Inspector, Haryana Roadways as PW2, Ram Saran as PW3, Lal Singh as PW4, Ash Mohd. as PW5, Narain Dass, Traffic Manager, Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon as PW6, UGC Jan Mohd. as PW7 and further relied upon complaint Ex.PW1/A, FIR Ex.PW4/A, endorsement on complaint Ex.PW5/A, recovery memo Ex.PW5/C and site-plan Ex.PW5/B. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioners denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. However, they did not examine any evidence in their defence. The trial Court acquitted the petitioners of the charges under Sections 427 and 506 IPC. However, they were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court for offences under Sections 186, 332 and 353 read with Section 34 IPC. The appeal filed by them against their conviction and sentences was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments passed by the Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the prosecution case on account of its failure to establish the identity of the accused persons. In order to establish the identity of the accused, the Crl. Revision No. 543 of 2003 -4- prosecution examined Baney Singh, Inspector, Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon as PW1, who identified all the accused in the Court, although he was unable to identify each one of them by name yet he could identify them by face. PW2 Ram Parkash, who was sitting in the mini bus, which was being illegally plied, identified the accused. Similarly, PW6 Narain Dass, Traffic Manager, who was standing at some distance at the time of the occurrence also identified the accused. Under these circumstances, even if Ram Saran PW3 had failed to identify any of the accused, it would have no effect on the merits of the case. Even otherwise, his failure to identify the accused is explainable as he had run away from the spot while saving his life. The non-examination of the doctor, who had medically examined Satbir Singh and Constable Ram Kumar is of no consequence as it has come in the evidence of the prosecution that both of them had received injuries. The injuries were caused by the accused to the aforementioned officials so as to deter them from discharging their official duties and for that act of theirs, the accused have been convicted under Section 332 IPC. The occurrence in question had taken place on 3.7.1995 at about 3.00 p.m. FIR was registered on 4.7.1995 at 5.20 p.m. It has come in the prosecution evidence that the matter was initially reported to the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon and only after Crl. Revision No. 543 of 2003 -5- obtaining his instructions that the FIR was lodged. Therefore, whatever delay occurred in lodging of the FIR stood duly explained. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the conviction of the petitioners. As the petitioners had created lawlessness and indiscipline by using criminal force against public servants, thereby deterring them from discharging their official duties, they are not entitled to be granted the benefit of probation. However, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, a case is made out for reducing the substantive sentences of the petitioners under Section 332 IPC from rigorous imprisonment for one year to rigorous imprisonment for nine months. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioners for the offences under Sections 186, 332 and 353 read with Section 34 IPC is maintained. The substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 332 IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months. The remaining sentences of imprisonment and fine alongwith their default clauses are maintained. Except for the modification in the quantum of sentence of imprisonment, as indicated above, the revision fails and is, therefore, dismissed. Crl. Revision No. 543 of 2003 -6- ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 05, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1