Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction of Dalip Singh for Assaulting Public Servant

Revisional jurisdiction limits prevent reappreciation of evidence; Dalip Singh's conviction for obstructing a public servant and causing harm stands affirmed.  

In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, dismissed the revision petition filed by Dalip Singh, thereby upholding his conviction for assaulting a public servant. The court reiterated the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing that such jurisdiction is not akin to an appellate court and is confined to correcting patent defects, jurisdictional errors, or errors of law.  

Dalip Singh was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karsog, District Mandi, and the conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi. He was found guilty under Sections 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, for obstructing a public servant in the discharge of official duties and causing harm. The incident occurred on April 26, 2012, when Dalip Singh, in a state of intoxication, assaulted Bhuvnu Ram, the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Jaral, with a stone, causing injuries near his left eye.  

The prosecution's case was supported by credible eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence. Despite minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses and non-examination of some witnesses, the court found the evidence sufficient for conviction. The court affirmed that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, was not applicable due to the nature of the crime involving force against a public servant.  

Justice Kainthla, in his judgment, emphasized the importance of a deterrent sentence for offenses against public servants to dissuade such acts and highlighted that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were not perverse or wholly unreasonable. The six-month sentence with fines under the relevant sections of the IPC and the PDP Act was upheld, with the court noting the seriousness of the offense and the need for deterrence.  

The judgment reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to protecting public servants from assault and ensuring that such offenses are met with appropriate legal consequences.  

Bottom Line:

Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C is limited to correcting patent defects, errors of jurisdiction or law, and cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction for reappreciating evidence unless there is perversity or miscarriage of justice.

Statutory provision(s):  

• - Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973  
• - Sections 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860  
• - Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984  
• - Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872  
• - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

Dalip Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2792453