Himmat Singh and Ors. vs Stale of U.P.

R.K. Singh, J.—Mr. Prem Prakash, learned Counsel for the revisionist is present. But in spite of repeated directions to argue the revision petition, Mr. Prem Prakash does not argue the revision petition. In these circumstances the revision petition is taken up for decision with the help of materials on record.

After perusal of the impugned judgment it comes out that the incident is of 2611978. The informant is Sri D.D. Tiwari, A.R.TO. (Enforcement) Mainpun who alleges that while he was doing the checking of vehicles at Shikohabad Mainpuri main road accompanied by constables Lahri Singh, Saudan Singh, Balak Ram and Yadunath Singh of the Enforcement Squad, the informant and members of the Checking Squad were in a Jeep driven by Krishna Kumar. Further allegation is that during checking Bus No. U.S.K. 722 was checked a little ahead of village ramai towards Shikohabad. The driver of the vehicle was Himmat Singh (Revisionist). Munna was acting as a conductor on the said bus. The A.R.T.O. Mr. Tiwari asked for papers of that bus but they could not show any paper at all. Thereupon Sri Tiwari prepared a challan of that bus under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and he directed constable Lahri Singh, to sit in that bus and to take the same to P.S. Shikhabad constable Lahri Singh, accordingly, got into that bus. Instead of taking the said bus to P.S. Shikohabad, as was directed by the A.R.T.O. the driver Sri Himmat Singh drove away that bus towards village Bharaul and actually took the said bus inside the abadi of village Bharaul and stopped it there. After stopping the said bus in village Bharaul, both driver and conductor named above got down from that bus and they called out at the spot numerous other villagers and they threatened to beat constable Lahri Singh. They also opened the bonnet of that bus with the intention of making the engine out of order. Constable Lahri Singh checked them from doing so and he had put his left hand at the bonnet at that time. But these accused persons did not yield and they, just then, closed the bonnet of that bus, thereby crushing the left hand of constable Lahri Singh and caused some injuries to him. The allegation further proceeds that the A.R.TO. Sri D.D. Tiwari also happened to reach the said place by the vehicle in which he and his party were moving and constable Lahri Singh narrated the whole incident to Sri Tiwari and also showed his injuries to him. Thereafter Mr. Tiwari took the injured constable Lahri Singh. He got his injuries examined in P.H.C. Ghiror by Dr. O.P.S. Bhadauria at 3.10 p.m. on the same day. After that an information was lodged at the Ghiror Police Station resulting in prosecution of the accused persons including the revisionist.

Sri D.D. Tiwari, A.R.T.O. besides constable Lahri Singh injured and other constable Balak Ram Singh have appeared to support the allegations. The accused persons examined in their defence Sri Prasan Kumar, D.W 1 of village Bharaul, Police Station Ghiror who claims to be owner of the private bus bearing No. U.K.S. 722 at the time of this occurrence. He denied that Himmat Singh was driver of the bus and Munna Lal was conductor of the same bus on that day. He further denied that his bus was challenged either by the police party or by the A.R.T.O. on 268 1971 and no incident took place in the manner alleged.

The impugned judgment has discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as defence witness in details. The judgment runs in long ten pages. The discussion of evidence and law in the impugned judgment is very satisfactory.

The victim constable Lahri as well as the A.R.T.O. and the accompanied person have supported the allegation according to the version mentioned in the First Information Report. The circumstance discussed by the learned Sessions Judge is satisfactory.

The impugned judgment does not disclose any illegality or impropriety. The sentence award to the revisionist is also according to law.

The revision does not disclose any merit. The same is dismissed.

The learned A.G.A. is directed to inform the Court below for compliance of the order.

Revision dismissed.