A man who attacked a police officer in a crowded courtroom just as he was being led outside to be taken to prison after his trial was found guilty by a trial court this past week under Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), Section 386 (extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt) and Section 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) of the Indian Penal Code but let off from actual imprisonment as he had already served most of his sentence while awaiting trial.
“The convict had prayed for a lenient view by stating that he has already undergone imprisonment for two years and three months and that he is the sole bread earner of his family and having responsibility of old ailing parents, wife and one minor child. So, in view of these facts and circumstances, the convict is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him,” said Judge Navita Kumari while sentencing the man.
The convict, Hasruddin, back in March 2008 at the Patiala House Courts was being taken away from the court when he, taking advantage of the rush in the court, suddenly picked up one blade from the table in the court room and stabbed the victim, Assistant Sub-Inspector Deshraj, twice in his left cheek and also threatened to kill him. He then stabbed himself in the abdomen head with the same blade. He was then overpowered and taken to hospital.
The prosecution lined up a total of 13 witnesses, all of whom had the same evidence to state. The counsel for the accused cross-examined just one witness, who also stuck his ground.
The counsel for accused also had an issue with the witnesses all being police persons for which the Judge said: “The testimony of police officials is as trustworthy as any other witness if it is otherwise credible and unimpeachable. It would not lose value merely because none of the public persons were made witnesses.”
The counsel for the accused had further argued that one of the witnesses deposed that two pieces of blade were handed over in the hospital but as per another witness it was handed over on the spot and thus there is contradiction between the testimony of both the witnesses, to which the Judge said: “This court is of the considered opinion that this contradiction is not such a material contradiction which could be fatal for the case of the prosecution, especially when all the witnesses have corroborated each other on the material particulars of the case. The testimonies of the eye witnesses are throughout consistent, coherent and corroborative.”
