PAWAN KUMAR TENEJA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon a first information report lodged against Rajendra Singh Rawat and Raj Kumar Singh, under Sections 323, 504 and 326 IPC, investigation started. The allegation against the accused persons was that on 24.08.2000, at 9:20 a.m., accused Rajendra Singh Rawat, who was President of Shriram Honda Workers Association, hurled abuses at the informant and also assaulted him. Coaccused Raj Kumar Singh caught hold of the informant/complainant/injured. After the investigation, a charge sheet in relation to the offences under Sections 323, 504, 326 IPC was submitted. Accused persons were summoned to face the trial. Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 326 IPC were framed against them, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(2.) PW 1 D.L.Ojha, PW 2 Pawan Kumar Taneja, PW 3 Doctor V.P.Joshi and SI Vijay Pal were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case because of the influence of the Trade Union Leader. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, the accused persons were granted benefit of doubt as regards the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 504 IPC. Accused persons were, however, convicted under Section 323 IPC and were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months, vide Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2007. Aggrieved against the said Judgment and Order, the accused persons preferred an Appeal before the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, who allowed the appeal and exonerated the accused persons of the charge of commission of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC, vide impugned Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2008. Aggrieved against the said Judgment and Order, the complainant Pawan Kumar Taneja moved this Criminal Revision.

(3.) The prosecution story was largely disbelieved and partly believed by the learned CJM, Udham Singh Nagar. In fact, it was a dispute between the Presidents of two rival Workers Unions. The complainant /injured was medically examined by PW 3, who did not find any external injury on the person of the injured. Although PW 3 said that the injuries sustained by the injured were grievous in nature, but the very foundation of the said opinion, was not available on record. The report given by Soban Singh Jeena Hospital, was not brought on record and therefore, it was not possible to hold that the injured sustained injuries, much less grievous injuries. Originally the complaint was registered as NCR, which was later on converted into offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 326 IPC. The allegation worth substance against the accused persons was that one of the accused caught hold of the informant and the other gave him a slap on his face. The trial court, therefore, rightly disbelieved that no grievous injury was sustained by the informant/injured.