SHRIRAM ARJUN REDDI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused has been convicted for an offence punishable under section 332 I. P. C. for assaulting a Bus Conductor on duty. The prosecution alleged that the accused boarded the bus from the front door and on objection being taken by the Conductor and the accused being required to step down from the bus, there was an alternation between him and the bus conductor, and the accused assaulted the Bus Conductor at that time. The accused has denied any assault by him on the Bus Conductor. According to him, while some other passengers were trying to get into the bus, the Bus Conductor gave the bell for starting the bus, and in that act some passengers, who were trying to board the bus, fell down. Subsequently, those persons climbed in the bus and as they were enraged on account of their falling down, they assaulted the Bus Conductor and the accused intervened to rescue the conductor from the assault.

(2.) The prosecution has examined the Bus Conductor who is the victim of the assault and the driver of the bus. The Bus Conductor Shaikh Abdul Kadar has given the incident that has taken place. He has been cross-examined at some length but nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to shake his evidence. He was not contradicted by any previous statement. The evidence does not show on the face of it that he is not a truthful witness. He is supported by the driver of the Bus Bashir Ahmed (P.W. 2). He says that the Conductor told him to take the bus to the Police Station. He looked back and found the accused beating the Conductor. In the cross-examination he again reiterated that the accused was assaulting the Conductor. Nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to discard his testimony. He has also not been contradicted with regard to his previous statement. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these two witnesses. The learned Magistrate has accepted the evidence of P.W. 1 Shaikh Abdul Kadar and convicted the accused for the offence under section 332 I.P.C.

(3.) I do not see any reason to disbelieve the evidence also of the bus driver. The learned Magistrate has not relied upon the evidence of the driver because, according to him, the driver had not stated before the police that he had seen the accused assaulting the complainant. It appears from this that the police statement has been used by the learned Magistrate as substantive piece of evidence which is in contravention of the provisions of section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The evidence of this witness does not show that his police statement was put to him during the evidence. There is no reference to the police statement in his deposition. I do not know how the learned Magistrate could have used this Police statement while deciding the matter. There is a procedure prescribed for putting the previous statement to a witness and without following that procedure no part of the statement can be used. The learned Magistrate seems to be oblivious of this procedure and has used the police statement of Bashir Ahmed without following the proper procedure. Since the substantive evidence of the driver Bashir Ahmed has not be shaken by contradicting him with his previous statement or in any other manner, the learned Magistrate was not correct in discarding the evidence of the driver Bashir Ahmed. The case of the prosecution, therefore, is fully proved and the conviction of the appellant-accused is fully justified.