Attar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

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. 2011:DHC:3283-DB W.P. (C) No. 1812/1998 Page 2

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 3 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 4 “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