IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.76 of 2002 and Cr. Revision No. 91 of 2006 Date of decision : April 20, 2009 Cr. Appeal No. 76 of 2002 State of H.P. Vs. Zakir Hussain and others Cr. Revision No.91 of 2006 Jakir Hussain Vs. State of HP. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. Yes For the appellant/ : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate Revision petitioner General in appeal No. 76 of 2002 and S/Shri R.S. Gautam and J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocates in Cr. Revision No. 91 of 2006. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate in Cr. Appeal No. 76 of 2002 and Mr. Ramesh Thakur Assistant Advocate General in Cr. Revision No.91 of 2006. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) By this judgment it is proposed to dispose of Criminal Revision No.91 of 2006, filed by Jakir Hussain, hereinafter called accused, as also Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2002, filed by the State against the judgment dated 8.6.2001 of the trial Court, whereby accused Jakir Hussain has been convicted of offence, under Section 324 IPC instead of offence, under Section 332 IPC, with which he was charged and two more persons charged and tried alongwith him, have been acquitted. 2. Relevant facts may be summed up thus. Police filed a report, under Section 173 Cr. P.C. against accused Jakir Hussain and two other persons, under Sections 341, 353 and 332 read with Section 34 IPC alleging that on 1.10.1999 around 8.15 PM, when PW-8 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Constable Prem Singh, posted at Ramshahar Police Station, was returning to his quarter, he was affronted by Jakir Hussain and one more unnamed person, near bus stand. They asked said Prem Singh why he had falsely implicated them in police cases. When PW-8 Prem Singh told them that he had not implicated anybody in any criminal case, accused Jakir Hussain allegedly hit him on the head with a rod, which caused a bleeding injury and the other man tore his uniform shirt and also dealt fist and kick blows. PW-8 Prem Singh cried for help, on hearing which, PW-4 Mehar Chand, a Home Guard Volunteer and PW- 5 Chet Ram, a Constable, who were on patrol duty, reached the scene. On seeing the said two witnesses, accused and his accomplice took to heels. Police was informed telephonically by PW-2 Babu Ram around 8.30 PM. A Head Constable, from Police Station Ram Shahar, was deputed, who recorded the statement of Prem Singh (PW8), under Section 154 Cr. P.C. which is Ext.P5. On the basis of this statement, case was formally registered, vide FIR Ext. P3. Prem Singh was taken to hospital where he was medically examined. Three injuries were found on his person. One of the injuries was clean cut edged wound measuring ½ x 8 cm on the left parietal region of scalp. It was bleeding profusedly. Doctor found loss of about 500 ml of blood. Two contusions, one on the right side of scapular region and another on the medial aspect of right knee were also noticed. All the three injuries were opined to be simple in nature. These were opined to have been caused by a sharp weapon. On completion of investigation, police challaned the accused and two more persons, named Mohinder Pal and Amar Chand. 3. Defence taken by the accused and his accomplices was that PW-8 Prem Singh had been purchasing eggs from the Rehdi of Mohinder Pal, one of the accomplices of accused Jakir Hussain, on …3… credit basis and when said Mohinder Pal demanded money, he (PW8) falsely implicated him and the present accused and one more person, in the present case. 4. Trial Court did not believe the defence version. It held that accused Jakir Hussain had caused injury on the head of PW-8 Prem Singh by means of a rod and thereby committed an offence, under Section 324 IPC. Trial Court rejected the prosecution plea that this was a case of voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such or in consequence of his having done or attempted to do something in the discharge of his duty as public servant. The two accomplices of the accused were acquitted. State has appealed against the acquittal of the two accomplices of the accused as also against his acquittal, under Section 332 IPC. 5. Trial Court after convicting the accused sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. 6. Accused went in appeal against his conviction and sentence to the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge dismissed his appeal. So, the accused has filed revision in this Court against his conviction and sentence, as aforesaid. 7. As regards the appeal filed by the State, I find no merit in it. As per statement, under Section 154 Cr. P.C, Ext.P5, PW-8 Prem Singh was allegedly assaulted on account of his having taken some action against accused Jakir Hussain, in his capacity as police official. However, while in the witness box, PW-8 Prem Singh did not say that the accused or his accomplices assaulted him on the excuse that he had implicated them in some police case. Also, he was not on duty at the time when assault was made, because as per his statement, he …4… was returning to his quarter, after performing his duty at the Police Station. As regards the two accomplices of the accused, suffice it to say that the evidence led by the prosecution did not prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that they were involved in the commission of crime. Hence the appeal is dismissed. 8. Coming to the revision filed by the accused, there does not seem to be any reason to disbelieve the version of PW-8 that he was dealt a blow with a rod on his head by the accused, when he was returning to his quarter from the police station and reached near the bus stand. His statement is corroborated by the telephonic information which was conveyed to the police by PW-2 Babu Ram as also by the earliest version, which he gave to the police, vide statement, under Section 154 Cr. P.C, Ext. P5. His testimony is further corroborated by the medico legal evidence in the form of testimony of PW-7 Dr. Naveen Kumar as also the medico legal report Ext. P4. 9. Learned counsel for the accused-revision petitioner has drawn my attention to the statement of the doctor in which he has stated that injury on the head could have been sustained only by a sharp edged weapon. His submission is that rod is not a sharp edged weapon and, so, it could not have caused the injury on the head of PW- 8 Prem Singh. The statement of the doctor in no way advances this submission. The doctor has himself stated that a rod can also have a sharp edge and cause the injury. In any case, the doctor has stated that the injury could have been caused as a result of striking of the head against a stair. The edge of a step of a stair is also semi-circular and thus in all probability it would cause an injury similar to the one caused by an iron rod, if the head strikes it. 10. Learned counsel for the accused-revision petitioner has also pointed out some contradictions in the statements of the …5… witnesses. He has drawn my attention to the statement of PW-1 Roshan Deen, who has stated that rod Ext.P-1, was produced by some Jagat Ram (accused) and that too from the compound of police station. This statement is admittedly contrary to the statement of Investigating Officer PW-9 Jai Gopal, who has stated that the rod was produced by the accused. The contradiction in the statements of these two witnesses in no way proves the innocence of the accused. The contradiction suggests that rod Ext.P-1 may not be the same which was used in inflicting the injury, but that would not disprove the testimony of the injured that he was dealt a blow with iron rod on his head, particularly when medico legal evidence is there to the effect that the witness sustained a bleeding injury on his head, which was so serious, even though not grievous, that it caused loss of 500 MLs. of blood and stitches had to be applied to stop bleeding. 11. In view of the above stated position, I see no merit in the revision filed by the accused. The same is, therefore, dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the accused-revision petitioner for offence under Section 324 IPC, as ordered by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, are upheld. Accused-revision petitioner is directed to surrender to the trial Court, within a fortnight, to serve out the sentence, failing which the trial Court shall take appropriate steps to secure the presence of the accused-revision petitioner and send him to jail to serve out the sentence. Both appeal and Criminal Revision stand disposed of. April 20, 2009(ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J