R C PAUL Vs. JAI INDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four officers viz. P. W. 5 R. C. Paul, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amritsar, p. W. 7 - Gurmukh Lal, Income-tax Officer, Arnritsar, p. W. S Inderjit Chopra, Research Scholars. Delhi university, Delhi and P. W. 9 - Mohal Lal, Income tax officer, Bombay City, went to a restaurant Odeon. situate near Adarsh Cinema, arnritsar for dinner and after they had completed their meals and had ordered ice-cream, it appears that one of them noticed a hair in the ice-cream and complained about the same. This is the genesis of the incident. It appears that thereafter certain events took place in the course of which there was an altercation causing injuries to the aforesaid prosecutionwitnesses. Two rival versions surface. The first is the prosecution version that after the complaint, all the aforesaid four officers, went to the counter to pay the bill of Rs. 42.20. The said amount was paid together with tip of Rs. 2.80 to the bearer, which payment was received by Amin Chand who was at the counter. The version of the prosecution is that P. W. 5, R. C. Paul and his companions told Amin Chand about the presence of hair in the ice-cream of P. W. 7-Gurmukh Lal and asked him to be careful in future. Amin Chand is stated to have replied that he did not manufacture the ice-cream and that the ice-cream was of Kwality Ice-cream and if a written complaint is given to him, he would forward it to the manufacturers. P. W. 5 - R. C. Paul was asked to give a written complaint but he was reluctant to do so. P. W. 7-Gurmukh Lal, however, wrote out a complaint Ex. P-12 and signed it. Amin chand insisted that P. W. 5-R. C. Paul, who was a local Judicial Magistrate should also sign the complaint but P. W. 5 told him that the signature of P. W. 7 was sufficient. However, on Amin Chand further insisting that P. W. 5 should put his signatures on the complaint and the latter refusing, Amin Chand uttered foul language and called the bearers and exhorted them to teach him a lesson for objecting to the quality of food supplied in his restaurant. Thereupon, according to the prosecution Harish Chander gave a first blow on the nose of P. W. 5 whereupon. the latter started bleeding. Amin Chand caught hold of P. W. 7- Gurmukh Lal and started giving him blows. Thereupon, the other three companions including P. W. 5. R. C. Paul, ran out of the restaurant followed by Harish Chander, Jai Inder singh, an ex-M. L. A. ,prithipal Singh, a sitting M. L. A. and Vidya Sagar, who were standing outside the restaurant are also alleged to have attacked P. W. 5 on being exhorted by Jai Inder Singh since he had in the past, issued warrants against the Congressmen and Prithipal Singh, M. L. A. Prithipal Singh it is alleged gave a fist blow on the head of P. W. 5, R. C. Paul and Vidya Sagar then pushed him whereupon he fell down and sustained injuries on the right knee and right elbow. Thereafter, all the four accused viz. Prithipal Singh, Jai Inder Singh. Vidya sagar and Harish Chander are alleged to have given him fist blows and kicks while he was lying on the ground. So far as P. W. 7- Gurmukh Lal is concerned, it is alleged that he was forcibly taken inside the restaurant by Harish Chander and illegally detained there by Amin Chand and himself. He raised an alarm whereupon Constable P. W. 10, Meja Singh and two others who were on patrol duty. came there and rescued the prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, p. W. 5. R. C. Paul and P. W. 9. Mohan Lal along with the Constables, went to the Police Station. It is (he prosecution case that one Tirath Ram Pahalwan, owner of the cinema, had also witnessed the incident. This, in brief, is the prosecution version in regard to the incident.

(2.) The defence version admits of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses having visited the restaurant for meals and also admits the fact that one of them had complained of hair in the ice-cream. The defence version is that when the bill was presented to the prosecution witnesses, they refused to pay it saying that the presence of hair had spoiled their taste and how dare the proprietor of the restaurant demand money. On this, an argument followed between Brij Lal Waiter and P. W. 5, in the course of which the latter is alleged to have pushed the former and slapped him. This infuriated the other waiters present in the restaurant and they are alleged to have assaulted P. W. 5. The fact that P. W. 5 received some injuries is not disputed. Thus, the defence version is that the prosecution witnesses invented an excuse of the presence of hair in the ice-cream and on that pretext refused to pay the bill and P. W. 5 even refused to put his signature on the complaint. The defence has also questioned the fact that P. W. 5 had paid the bill before the altercation.

(3.) The trial took place in the High court of punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The case was registered as Criminal Original No. 190 (Cr. ) of 1974. The charge against the accused persons was for the crime of offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 342/34, Indian Penal Code. No charge was framed under Section 506, Indian Penal Code. The division bench of the High court has by a detailed judgment examined the prosecution evidence and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution version regarding the incident is not acceptable. The high court refused to place reliance on the evidence of P. Ws. 5.7, 8 and 9 on the ground that they all belonged to the same caste and were, therefore. interested in the prosecution version of the incident. Of the three constables who came to the site on hearing the commotion, only Constable. Maje Singh, was examined bu the did not support the prosecution version. The other two Constables were dropped. The other person viz. Tirath Ram Pahalwan was also not produced as a prosecution witness. None of the waiters was called to the witness stand presumably because it was thought that they will not support the prosecution case. One of the waiters Brij Lal was called as a court witness and he supported the defence version. It will, thus, be seen from the abovefacts that two versions in regard to the incident were placed before the High court. After carefully examining the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses, the High court rejected the prosecution evidence, inter alia, on the ground that they all belonged to one single caste. That, in our opinion, is not a valid ground for rejecting the evidence. It may at best call for close scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, but the failure of the Police Constable to support the prosecution case and the omission to call tirath Ram Pahalwan to the witness stand are circumstances which have a bearing on the appreciation of evidence of the prosecution witnesses. On going through the evidence, it seems clear to us that the aforesaid four officers went to the restaurant to have dinner and after dinner when ice-cream was served, one of them viz. P. W. 7 complained of the presence of a hair in the ice-cream and lodged a complaint. Up to this point, both the prosecution version and the defence version, are more or less identical. There is a divergence in the version of the events that followed. The prosecution version is that notwithstanding the presence of hair in the ice-cream they paid the bill and it was only thereafter when P. W. 5 refused to sign the complaint that an altercation took place in which he was injured. The defence version, on the other hand. is that on the pretext of the presence of hair in the ice-cream, the four prosecution witnesses, who were all officers. refused to pay the bill and P. W. 5 pushed and slapped the bearer who had come with the bill. whereupon the other companions of the bearer lost their temper and hit P. W. 5. The High court on a scrutiny of the evidence has come to the conclusion that the prosecution version is fabricated and unacceptable and the defence version is quite probable. In the of the matter, the High court acquitted the accused persons. We are of the view. having regard to the state of evidence on record, two versions were equally possible and if we are to assume that even if the defence version is not so probable as compared to the prosecution version, it is all the same a probable version and in an acquittal appeal. this court would be reluctant to interfere with a probable version and upset the findings of the High court. We are, therefore, of the opinion, that where two versions are equally possible if the High court has accepted one version, we see no reason to reverse the acquittal order on the ground that it would have been better for the High court to accept the prosecution version. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the view taken by the high court. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. We also do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the High court in the contempt proceedings. The Appeals based on the orders made in that behalf shall also stand dismissed.