IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Revion No. 64 of 2004. Date of Decision: 14.9.2010. _______________________________________________ Roshan Lal ….petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr.R.K.Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Sunita Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent. : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner challenges his conviction for offences under Sections 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- for offences under Section 332 I.P.C and simple imprisonment for six months for offences under Section 353 I.P.C. Both sentences to run concurrently. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 The sentence has been modified by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba. The court dismissed the appeal but modified the sentence increasing the fine to Rs.5,000/- for offences under Section 332 I.P.C. and Rs.4,000/- for offences under Section 353 I.P.C., in default of fine in both offences to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each for each offence. Out of the fine realize the amount was ordered to be paid as compensation to each victim. While modifying the sentence, the learned appellate Court ordered that the sentence of imprisonment was modified and the petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court for both offences. 2. Brief facts necessary for the decision of this case are that on 5.4.1995 PW7 Rajesh Kumar, who was employed as a driver with bus No. HP-48-0824 plying on the Shimla Chamba route, when the bus reached at Sukerain-Byen at around 6.30 pm., the conductor of the bus asked the driver to stop the bus as the accused had refused to purchase a ticket for the journey and started quarrelling with the conductor. Complainant PW1 Mehar Singh asked the accused to buy the ticket but instead, he was given a fist blow on his face as a result of which blood started oozing. The incident was reported to the police and investigation started. The prosecution recorded the evidence of PW1 Mehar Singh, PW5 Surinder Kumar, PW6 Rai Singh and PW7 Rajesh Kumar. PW3 Dr.P.K.Ahluwalia examined the injured. 3 3. On a consideration of the evidence of these three witnesses, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner holding that it had been established beyond reasonable doubt that the incident as alleged had, in fact, taken place. All the witnesses corroborated the prosecution case in all material particulars despite the fact that it was urged on behalf of the defence that their evidence could not be relied upon as they were not independent witnesses. The sentence has been modified by the learned appellate Court. 4. I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as also learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent. 5. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that there was no independent witness to support the case as all of them were in one manner or the other employed with the Transport Corporation. It is also urged that these witnesses have admitted that 30 to 35 persons were present in the bus but none of them have been produced to prove the case of the prosecution. 6. I cannot accept this submission on behalf of the petitioner. It is not necessary in every case that independent witnesses be produced. Merely because of the fact that the witnesses may be employed with the Transport Corporation in one capacity or the other, would not render their testimony as unworthy of credence. It is fundamental rule of evidence that testimony is to be assessed on the basis of the cross- examination of a witness and then considered in the light of 4 the fact as to whether the evidence is parochial or not. I do not find that even after such assessment, there is any reason to disbelieve these witnesses. 7. In these circumstances, I do not find any perversity in the appreciation of the evidence by the courts below. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. September 14, 2010(R)