IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 67 of 2003 Date of Decision: 13th August, 2010 __________________________________________________________ Inderjeet Singh & others ….Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent. __________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.K. Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and sentence of the Courts below sentencing them for offences under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Gurjeet Singh PW1 lodged a report on 24.8.1998 with the police stating therein that he along with PW2 Brij Pal was going from Poanta Sahib to Delhi, and around 10. 40 AM, when they reached near Vishkarma Chowk, 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 in the meantime one Mikka, Guddu and two others stood in the middle of the road and stopped his bus. Mikka and Guddu caught hold him from his shirt and started abusing him. The conductor intervened and saved him. The buttons of the dress of complainant were ripped off. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of its case, which included PW1 Gurjeet Singh, PW2 Brijpal, PW3 Kulbhushan Rana, PW4 Jagdish Chand amongst others. 3. The prosecution version as narrated by PWs 1 and 2 has been corroborated in material particulars by each of these witnesses. PW4 Jagdish Chand, the Constable has not supported the case of prosecution. Another witness PW8 Sarwan Singh had identified the accused. He has though been declared hostile, but, I do not find anything from his cross examination which would prove the innocence of the petitioners. These findings have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the record. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously contended that the petitioners especially the person Guddu has not been identified, the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below is perverse and as PW4, who was the Police Constable, has not corroborated the version of prosecution, there is nothing on record to show that this witness has been procured or hired by the petitioners. 5. After having gone through the evidence, I do not find that this submission can be accepted. Each of the petitioners has been identified by PWs 1, 2 and 8. Causing an affray and fighting with the persons, who are performing public duties, cannot be tolerated in the civilized society. On the question of sentence, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the incident relates to the year 1998, 3 sentence of imprisonment may not be imposed upon the petitioners. I am not inclined to accept this plea as I hold that deterring a person from performing the public duties is, but, to be viewed seriously. However, the inexorable delay of the Criminal System prompts this Court to set aside the sentence of imprisonment. In these circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside. Each of the petitioners/accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- each which would be deposited before the trial Court on or before 29th October, 2010. It is clarified that in case the fine is not deposited by the time allowed by this Court, the learned trial Court shall execute the sentence of imprisonment forthwith. This fine is in addition to the fine imposed by the Courts below. Petition stands disposed of. August 13th, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge