SOM DUTT Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 7-1-1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan whereby the conviction of the petitioner under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of fine in the sum of Rs. 1000.00 has been maintained.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present petition, briefly stated, are that Partap Singh (P.W. 1) received a telephonic message on 2-3-1997 from Pariksha Devi (P.W. 3) intimating that they had to go to Shimla to have some urgent discussion with the Minister. P.W. 1 accompanied by Chet Ram (P.W. 2) then left for Chogtali. While on the way, the petitioner, Dev Dutt, Mohan Lal, Narain Dutt, Tara Dutt and Padam Dutt (all accused before the trial Court and hereafter referred to as the co-accused) questioned them as to why they were helping Hira Singh. P.W. 1 denied helping said Hira Singh. However, the aforesaid persons including the petitioner attacked P.W. 1. The petitioner picked up a stone and inflicted a blow therewith on the palm of the right hand of P.W. 1. As a result P.W. 1 sustained injury. Co-accused Narain Dutt and Tara Dutt caught hold of P.W. 2 and in the process right pocket of his coat was torn. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 had to run for safety. P.W. 1 immediately after the occurrence made a statement to the police under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Ext. P.W. 4/A on the basis of which formal FIR. Ext. P.W. 1/A was registered at Police Station Rajgarh under Sections 147, 149, 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation P.W. 1 was got medically examined and Dr. Vikas Fotedar (P.W. 5) found a lacerated wound over the right palmer aspect of P.W. 1. The injury so found was simple in nature and its probable duration was one to six hours. It was also opined by P.W. 5 that the injury was caused with blunt weapon. He accordingly issued MLC Ext. P.W. 5/A. After collecting the material and on being satisfied that the petitioner and the co-accused had committed the offences complained against, the officer-in-charge of Police Station Rajgarh submitted a charge-sheet against them. They came to be tried by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh on a charge under Sections 147, 323, 341, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. To prove the charge against them the prosecution examined ten witnesses.

(3.) The petitioner and the co-accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they denied the prosecution case as a whole and claimed that it was a false case. They, however, did not lead any defence evidence.