^w il CP0000061'%' Ingie Bench (Criminal] IISLTHE HIGH COURT_QF__Jl3DICATURE_ 0£M.P»_ AT: JABALPUR. Crirainal Appeal Npo^ k ^\ /97 • APPELLAKTo Karan Singh R/o» Ram Sahay aged about 37 years R/p» Vill- Bhakura, PS-AmMkapur Qistt- Sarguja, MP< •'"""' ^ o^ - - ^a»< •»<1< ">. ,$..."..•> ^.^^^ -Versus- RESPONDENT. State of M^Po through PS4- Ambikapur Distt- Sarguja» MPo CRIMINAL APPEALU/S. 374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDUREyl973. [__ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.584 of 1997 APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: -Versus- Karan Singh State of Madhya Pradeshl (now Chhattisgarh) POST FOR JUDGMENT ON J 9'fh AUGUST. 2011 Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.584 of 1997 APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: -Versus- Karan Singh State of Madhya Pradesti (now Chhattisgarh) Present: Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, counsel for the appellant. Shri Avinash K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. JUDGMENT (Delivered onj_^_ August, 2011 ) Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. 1. In this criminal appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the legality and validity of his conviction under Sections 186, 353, 333 and 427 of the IPC and sentence of R.l. for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, R.l. for one month for most grievous offence under Section 333 amongst Sections 186, 353 & 333 of the IPC and further R.l. for one year under Section427ofthelPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, was that on 21-9-90 at about 7 pm complainant Daya Shankar Singh, a Patwari, was discharging his official duty in the Panchayat Bhawan, at that time, the appellant obstructed the said public servant in discharge of his public functions, caused grievous hurt to him to deter him from performing his duties by use of criminal force and also committed mischief causing damage to the pfficial records. 3. At the relevant time, PW-2 Daya Shankar Singh, Patwari Halka 1^0.14, ^ was making entries of crops in the revenue records under the imely Reporting Scheme (for short 'TRS') and was thus performing duties in discharge of his official work. Village Servant Sohan Das (PW-4), Hadbad (PW-3) and Tiblu Ram were also present at the place of occurrence. At this time, appellant Karan Singh came to the place with a club in his hand and exhorted the complainant as to why he is sitting in the Panchayat Bhawan and he asked the complainant to go out and stop his official work. He spread official papers and started assaulting the complainant by hands, fists and club becauseof which he received injuries on his hand and legs. His wrist watch was broken and separated. The appellant also assaulted PW-3 Hadbad. He also removed Shirt and Dhoti of the complainant and set them on fire. Written FIR was lodged by PW-2 Daya Shankar Singh vide Ex.-P/S and the complainant was sent for medical examination where PW-6 Dr. A.K. Choudhary medically examined him and submitted his report vide Ex.- P/11A. He was also referred to the Radiologist for X-ray on which Dr. M.K. Jain (PW-1) conducted his X-ray examination and on the basis of reading of X-ray plate Ex.-P/2 submitted his report (Ex.-P/1) findirjg one fracture in the left hand of the complainant. PW-3 Hadbad was also medically examined by Dr. Prashant Shrivastava (PW-7), who submitted his report Ex.-P/12A. In the course of investigation, recovery c^f club was made from the appellant vide Ex.-P/S and recovery of burnt shirt and dhoti was made vide Ex.-P/Q. 4. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses to bring home the charges;. The appellant abjured his guilt and stated that he hasland dispute with|PW-3 hladbad and the Patwari resides in his house, therefore, both ofl them have conspired to lodge false report against him. 5. Learned counsel for the appellantargued that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and that material contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses have been ignored while recording thefinding ofguilt. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent suppori:ed the impugned judgment. 7. PW-2 Daya ShanarSingh is the complainant. He has proved lodging of written FIR vide Ex.-P/3 and seizure of wrist watch vide Ex.-P/4. He has also proved that he was directed by the Land Records Departmentas well as by the Revenue Inspector, the Tehsildar and the Collector to make entries of crops in the revenue records for which Timely Reporting Scheme was issued. He has filed copy of the order whereby he had resumed the charge of the office of the concerned Halka .Patwari and the memo issued by the Tehsildar under the Timarly Reporting Scheme. This witness has reiterated his allegation of obstruction in performing public duties, assault and setting on fire his shirt and dhoti by the appellant. He has also stated that he was made to sit in his undergarments and one Turkiha of the village handed over his dhoti and shirt and he went to the police station only after putting on dhc^ti and shirt handed over by said Turkiha. Nothing could be elicited fro^m this witness in his cross-examination so as to impeach his credibility. 8. PW-3 Hadbad has also supported the case of the prosecution arpd has made categorical statement that on the date of occurrence the ap^ellant was armed with club and assaulted him as well as Patwari. hle h^s also proved seizure of burnt shirt and dhoti from Daya Shankar Singh This ••%. ^".. witness has denied the suggestion that there is any land dispute with the appellant. Though PW-4 Sohan Das has been declared hostile, however, in his cross-examination, he has stated that he had gone to the police station along with PW-2 Daya Shankar Singh for lodging the report. He also admits that he has arrived the Court along with the accused 9. Having seen the evidence of both the injured, this Court shall now consider the medical evidence available in the case. 10. PW-6 Dr. A.K. Choudhary had examined Daya Shankar Singh and found 2 lacerated wounds on his left leg, one abrasion on left hand, pain on the calf of right leg, pain and swelling on left palm, left wrist and right palm. This witness had referred the patient for X-ray examination, which was later on verified by PW-1 Dr. M.K. Jain, who had found fracture on left radius bone of Daya Shankar. His report is Ex.-P/1 whereas report submitted by PW-6 Dr. A.K. Choudhary has been proved as Ex.-P/|11A. 11.PW-7 Dr. Prashant Shrivastava examined injured PW-3 Hadba^d has found 4 simple injuries on his person. 12. From the above set of evidence of the injured as well as rr|edical evidence, it is fully established that on the date of the incident and when Daya Shankar Singh was performing his official duties, the appellant obstructed him in performance of his official duty, assaulted causing grievous hurt and also committed mischief by dan]iaging property of the value more than Rs.50. The finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court is thus fully supported by the evidence on reco^d and '.^- there is absolutely no perversity in the said finding. him, h»»» l3.The argument that material contradictions and omissions have been ignored has been examined by thjs Court only to find that there are no such contradictions and omissions which would disprove the case of the prosecution. The contradictions are too trivial and minor and have no adverse impact on the case ofthe prosecution. 14. Though PW-4 Sohan Das has stated that there is land dispute between PW-3 Hadbad and the appellant, however, this witness has turned hostile and at thesame time has supported Daya Shankar Singh to state that he had gone along with Daya Shankar Singh to lodge report. If according to this witness, no incident had taken place and the appellant has been falsely implicated, there was absolutely no reason for him to accompany Daya Shankar Singh to the Police Station for lodging the report. Even otherwise, when cross-exammed by the prosecution, this witness says that he was not present at the place of occurrence, therefore, statement of this witness is of no availor assistance to the appellant. 15-This Court shall now consider the adequacy or otherwise ^»f the sentence imposed on the appellant. At the time of occurrence in 1990 the appellant was 33 years of age as mentioned in the committa| order dated 10-12-1993. His present age, after 21 years of the incident,) would be 54 years. 16-Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter Of Siyasaran V. State of ivladhya Pradesh {1995 CRI.L.J. 2126} to submit that theappellant d^serves only fine sentence and the jail sentence be set aside in the facts and ^ . \ circumstances of the case. i 6 17. In the case before Hon'ble Supreme Court, the accused had assaulted Government doctor because he was not providing medical assistance to brother of the accused, which is not a case here inasmuch as in the present case, there was absolutely no reason for theappellant to have assaulted the complainant and further he has humiliated the public servant by disrobing him and setting his clothes on fire. Therefore, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable on facts. 18. Though it is true that in all the offences for which the appellant has been convicted, jail sentence is not mandatory, as for all the offences it is provided that the accused may be punished with imprisonment of either description of different durations or with fine, or with both, however, looking to the manner in which the appellant has committed offence of obstructing public servant,causing grievous hurt to him and thereafter disrobed him of his wearing apparels namely, Dhoti and Shirt, putting them on fire and had made the complainant to sit in his undergarments for a quite length of timeand wearing apparels were provided b^ a co- villager Turkiha and only thereafter he could proceed to lodge the report, this Court does not deem it appropriate to completely set aside ^he jail i sentence. However, looking to the long lapse of time, sentencelof R.l. for 3 years for offence under Section 333 of the IPC appear$ to be harsh. 19. In view of the foregoing, it is directed that instead of undergoing 3 years under Section 333 of the IPC, the appellant shall unde IR.I. for jgo R.l. for 1 month and under Section 427 of thelPC the appellarit shall Y undergo R.l. for 15 days, instead of one year. In addition, the appellant shall also pay fine of Rs.25,000/- out of which compensation of Rs.20,000/- tocomplainant Daya Shankar Singh (PW-2) and Rs.5,000/- to Hadbad (PW-3) shall be paid under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. The payment be deposited in the trial Court on or before 30th September, 2011. In the event of deposit, it shall be the duty of the trial Court to locate Daya Shankar Singh (PW-2) and Hadbad (PW-3) most expeditiously so that they can obtain the compensation. If the amount of compensation is not paid within the stipulated time, the appellant shall be required to undergo additional R.l. for 15 days for both the offences respectively. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 20. The appea! is thus allowed in part to the above extent. Barve Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge