Delhi High Court
Attar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 July, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 5th July 2011.
+ W.P.(C) No. 1812/1998
ATTAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr.S.P. Sharma, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local
papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or
not?
3. Whether the judgment should
be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
1. Notwithstanding all and sundry points urged in the writ
petition, learned counsel for the petitioner presses only one.
Learned counsel urges that from the statement of the Sepoy
(Cobbler) Subhash Chand it cannot be said that the charge stands
proved against the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was charged for having voluntarily caused
grievous hurt by using a dangerous weapon when he and
Constable (Cobbler) Ramesh Chand attacked Sepoy (Cobbler)
Subhash Chand at the unit Lines on 8.9.1996 at about 20:30 hrs.
W.P. (C) No. 1812/1998 Page 1
3. The statement of Sepoy (Cobbler) Subhash Chand on which
reliance is placed reads as under:-
"Sharab ka beh peg pite himujhe bahut hi jayada
nasha lagane naga aur kursi par betha betha behoshi
main ho gaya aur koi hosh nahin raha ki main kahan
hun. Itna jarur laga ke achanak L.N./Cob Attar Singh
aur Sep/Cob. Ramesh Chand aik sath mujh par toot
pare aur koi chubhane bali chij lagi to hosh kho baitha
ki beh maire sath kaya kar rahe hain. Mujhe dard
mehsus hua is doran to main aik kdo kadam uth kar
chala hi ki kuchh takraya aur behoshi main phir se
gaya aur maine itna kaha ki Attar major meri ankh gai
bas ye hi shabh muhun se nikle the uske bad mujhe
nahun malum main kahan tha".
4. From a perusal of the statement of Sepoy (Cobbler)
Subhash Chand it is apparent that he states that all three i.e.
petitioner, Sepoy (Cobbler) Ramesh Chand and Sepoy (Cobbler)
Subhash Chand were dead drunk and he i.e. Sepoy (Cobbler)
Subhash Chand was sitting on a chair. Suddenly, petitioner and
Sepoy (Cobbler) Ramesh Chand, acting together, assaulted him
(aik sath mujh par toot pare) and he realized the he was being
assaulted with some sharp edged object. He felt pain. He realized
that he was injured in the eye.
5. It is thus apparent that the argument is running in the teeth
of testimony of Sepoy (Cobbler) Subhash Chand.
6. We may simply note that the petitioner was subjected to
trial at a summary Security Force Court and after prosecution
evidence was led, made a statement in defence, which reads as
under:-
"The statement of accuse no.807030505
LNK/Cobbler Attar Singh, Administration wing, 3rd Bn.,
W.P. (C) No. 1812/1998 Page 2
ITB Police that on 08.09.1995 in evening approx. at
1900-1915 hrs were three Cobbler (Ct. Cobbler
Ramesh Chand, Ct. Cobbler Subhash Chand and me
myself) were drinking liquor in the tent during which
we started arguing and took up the liquor bottle and
hit Subhash after breaking the bottle. Subhash got
injuries in his shoulder and also on his head or may be
also on other parts too that I don't know as I was out
of my control due to over drinking of liquor. Bit I
remember that his face was in front of me. In between
Ct. Cobbler Ramesh Chand took out Rampi from the
toolbox and started hitting Subhash. Subhash came
out of the tent immediately and he shouted that Attar
Singh Master (Ustad) please took me to the hospital.
Then I hold Subhash outside the tent and after some
time when other personnel Constable Devraj, NK
Santosh Arrived were took Subhash to the hospital. I
took Subhash to the hospital by giving my support
from one side with my hands and from other side
Constable Devraj gave him the support. In the hospital
he got bandaged but he was still bleeding. In the
hospital looking at the injuries of Ct. Cobbler Subash
Chand I felt very distressed for what I have done with
him and whether he would survive or not. After that I
was arrested and next day I came to know that
Subash has survived but he has lost his one eye.
Except this we are culprit and whatever punishment
will be awarded to us, we will have to suffer by the
wish of God because it is our mistake, my mistake."
7. From the statement made by the petitioner at the trial it is
apparent that he admitted his as also Constable (Cobbler)
Ramesh Chand's accomplicity in what happened and gave
justification by stating that since everybody was drunk, the
assault was unintentional.
8. We note that in the writ petition the petitioner has taken a
somersault and has pleaded about the incident in para 4 of the
writ petition as under:-
W.P. (C) No. 1812/1998 Page 3
"The petitioner was transferred to the unit a few
days ago when the incident happened. Const. Subhash
Chand was deployed in the Bataliion's Mess to perform
the duties there. The petitioner and another Const.
Ramesh Chand, who was also working with the
petitioner in the Cobbler's shop and were also staying
in the same tent. Const. Subhash Chand came into the
tent in the bleeding condition and asked the petitioner
to take him to the Batalion's Hospital saying that he
has been betrayed by his staff, as such the petitioner
gave support to the injured and tried to take him to
Hospital, when he was standing out side the tent one
Contb. Girish and assisted him in taking the injured to
the hospital."
9. It is apparent that at the trial the petitioner admitted that
he and Constable (Cobbler) Ramesh Chand had assaulted
Constable (Cobbler) Subhash Chand and in the writ petition stand
projected is to the contrary.
10. Be that as it may, we find it to be a case of sufficient
evidence.
11. Noting that Constable (Cobbler) lost an eye, we do not find
the penalty of dismissal from service inflicted upon the petitioner
to be excessive or disproportionate. The writ petition is
dismissed but without costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SUNIL GAUR, J.
JULY 05, 2011
rs
W.P. (C) No. 1812/1998 Page 4
