IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2003. Date of Decision: 24.5.2010. Payare Lal and another. …Petitioners. Versus: State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 No. For the petitioners. Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For Respondent. Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J(Oral) . The petitioners challenges the judgment of conviction, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the petitioners have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment as under: Sr.No. U/S 1. 353 IPC. Simple imprisonment for a period of one month with a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine he will undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. 332 IPC. Simple imprisonment for a period of One month and a fine of Rs.500/-.In default of payment of fine he will undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 3. 506 IPC. To pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment he will undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?yes. 2 The case of the prosecution is that both the petitioners assaulted Dr. L.D.Hill, who was discharging his duties as public servant while he was attending/organizing a family planning camp at Civil Dispensary, Hatwar. I need not go into the detailed facts of the case. I find that both the courts below on an appreciation of the evidence on record have found the petitioners guilty of the offences as alleged. It is true that in revisional jurisdiction, this Court can look into the factual aspects of the case provided the findings are perverse but on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, I cannot persuade myself to hold that the courts below have come to a perverse finding on the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners urges that the evidence of the witnesses produced by the prosecution could not be relied upon as all were interested witnesses inasmuch as they were either doctors or employees of the medical department. I cannot accept this submission. It is obvious that in a family planning camp, it was only these people who would be the natural witnesses of the occurrence. Learned counsel further submits that since the incident took place in a crowded place, there were plenty of independent witnesses. This submission also cannot be accepted as the veracity of the testimony of the so called official witnesses cannot be brushed aside merely because they are serving with the Government. That would be stretching the principle of independent evidence beyond all logic. 3 Coming to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the incident relates to the year 1994 and the petitioners have faced the ordeal of trial, appeal and now in revision for a period of more than sixteen years. In these circumstances, I set aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon both the petitioners and direct that each of them shall pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. This fine would be for all the offences for which they have been found guilty. The fine shall be deposited by the petitioners before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin within a period of four weeks from today. It is clarified that in case the fine amount has not so deposited, the substantive sentence of imprisonment shall revive. A direction is issued to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin to execute the sentence in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. May 24,2010(R)