CHATAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
CHATAR SINGH,Samay Singh S/O Bholu,Sanjay Kumar S/O Lakshman
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) It is settled law that concurrent findings of fact should not be interfered with even by the appellate court, far less by the revisional court, unless it is shown and established that there has been manifest error in accepting facts or illegal acceptance of evidence. In the instant case, nothing has been shown in the grounds of revision, nor it has been urged as to why the revisional court will interfere with concurrent findings of facts recorded by two courts below. The principal contention is failure to appropriately appreciate evidence that was brought on record. That appears to be not permissible to be urged at the revisional stage. Be that as it may, the fact remains that it was brought on record that the government official, while discharging government duty, was assaulted and the same was witnessed by a person accompanying the government official. It appears to be the contention that the assault has not been established through independent evidence given by local villagers. The nature and quantum of evidence to be tendered, entirely depends upon prosecution in India. It is not the quantum of evidence which is important, but the quality of evidence that is important. In the instant case, prosecution felt that through the two witnesses the case can be proved and they tried to prove the same. The question is, whether the evidence, thus tendered, could or could not be accepted. I have not been shown any reason, for which the evidence tendered should not be accepted. Mere discrepancies here and there have already been dealt with appropriately by the courts below. There is, therefore, no scope of interference. The first court convicted the accused persons under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for four months with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment for 15 days. The appellate court upheld the said conviction and sentence. However, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the public servant, the sentence of four months is reduced to two months and, at the same time, the fine is increased to Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand) and in default to undergo further imprisonment for two months in respect of each of the applicants/convicts. In the event they were in custody in course of investigation or in course of trial or after the appeal was dismissed, the period spent in Jail during such custody shall be deducted from the period of two months' imprisonment, as directed above. The applicants/convicts are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the court below with a direction upon the trial court to ensure that the applicants serve out the remaining part of the sentence. The revision is disposed of accordingly. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court alongwith trial court records.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.