Jorubha Anandsong vs State

Shah, C.J.—This is an appeal against the conviction & sentence passed on the accused by the Sess. J. Jhalawad Division, for offences under Sections 329 & 841, I.P.C. The complainant Manilal Jesang is a money-lender & trader residing at Bhadresi. The accused Jorubha, who is a resident of Dumana, owed a sum of Rs. 810 to one Magaulal Zaver, for which he had executed a promissory note in favour of Maganlal & the complainant Manilal had purchased the said claim from Maganlal in September 1949. Manilal later served a notice of demand on the accused & as the accused failed to make payment, he filed a suit in the Ct. of Civil Judge, Dharangadhra, on 11-2-1950 In the afternoon of the 22nd February Manilal had gone to Dumana in connection with his business & it is alleged that the accused had seen him in the village. Manilal started on horseback to return to Bhadresi at about sun-set time & as he reached the boundary of the two villages, he was suddenly accosted by the accused, who caught hold of the reins of the horse & started beating him with a stick. It is alleged that the accused also took out a razor from his pocket, at the sight of which Manilal was seized with terror & he promised that he would write off the debt & implored the accused to spare him. However, the accused dealt several stick blows to Manilal & let him go after warning him of the serious consequences in case he took any steps for the beating. Manilal reached Bhadresi at about 7 or 7.30 o''clock in the evening & the news of the incident spread in the village. His brother Laxmichand who lived at Dhrangadhra was seat for & he came down to Bhadresi the same night. Manilal had taken such a fright that he refused to file a complaint, but Laxmichand & Narmadashanker, the Police Patel of the village went to the Police Station as Dhrangadhra next morning & lodged the first information & as a consequence the accused was tried for offences of causing grievous hurt, wrongful confinement & robbery accompanied by the use of deadly weapon.

The accused denied having anything to do with the offence & he adduced evidence on the point, viz., that he was in his own house in Daman a village at the material time. The learned Judge, however, found that the accused caused grevious hurt to Manilal & that he did it for the purpose of constraining Manilal to withdraw the suit & write off the debt & for the purpose of making him not to take any legal action for the injuries inflicted, & in the learned Judge''s opinion the offence committed fell u/s 329, I.P.C. He also held that the accused had wrongfully restrained Manilal from proceeding to Bhadresi, & he therefore convicted the accused under Sections 329 & 341, I.P.C. & sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment for the former offence & to a fine of Rs. 100 in default 15 days'' simple imprisonment for the latter offence. He acquitted the accused of the charge u/s 397, I.P.C.

This appeal which has been preferred by the accused, has been admitted only on the point whether the facts established in the case constitute an offence u/s 329, I.P.C. & the hearing of the appeal has been restricted to that particular point. Mr. Sheth the learned Counsel for the applt. does not now dispute the fact that the accused had inflicted the injuries on Manilal He however contends that the grievous hurt cannot be said to have been caused for the purpose of constraining Manilal to do anything that is illegal, even if the same had been caused with a view to forcing him to write off the debt due from the accused, & for which Manilal had already filed a suit. The contention is correct & in our opinion, assuming that to be the purpose it could not be said that the purpose was to constrain Manilal to do any illegal act, because the writing off a debt or the withdrawal of a suit to an force the debt are not acts which can be said to be illegal. It is constraining the person to do an illegal act which is made punishable under the Section & even if the person was constrained to write off the debt or to withdraw the suit by improper means, the fiction itself, viz., the writing off or the withdrawal of the claim not being an illegal thing, the bringing about of that action will not contravene the provisions of Section 329. That section will come into play provided the act that the other person is constrained to do is itself illegal; & it is not the compulsion used against the person to do that act that makes it illegal. The illegality appertains to the action that the other person is compelled to take & it does not arise from the means adopted in constraining that person to take the action. Therefore the fact that the accused caused hurt to Manilal for the purpose of making him to give up his claim will not constitute an offence u/s 329, I.P.C. & this position has been fairly conceded by the learned Advocate-General. The Advocate General however urged that the offence would fall u/s 331, I.P.C. inasmuch as the purpose for which the accused caused the grievous hurt was to constrain Manilal to satisfy the claim made in the suit. The contention is not correct. The satisfaction of the claim or demand referred to in Section 331 is the claim or demand which is owing to the person causing the grievous hurt & not to the victim of the grievous hurt. The section applies to cases where the grievous hurt is caused by a person for the purpose of having a claim or demand, which the other person owes to him, satisfied & not to cases where the claim or demand is owed by the culprit to the victim of the assault. Evidently therefore the offence will not fall u/s 331, I.P.C. In our opinion the offence in this case falls u/s 825, I.P.C. & we therefore alter the conviction to one under the said Section.

Mr. Sheth for the applt. has urged that the sentence of three years'' rigorous imprisonment for an offence u/s 325, I.P.C. is too severe & he has prayed for a reduction of the sentence. The quantum of the sentence must however depend upon the facts of each particular case & it may be that a sentence of three years'' rigorous imprisonment u/s 325 in a certain case might be considered to be excessive. However, the accused has here accosted Manilal while he was alone & was returning to his village at about sunset time & he has belaboured Manilal in a cruel & remorseless manner, though the weapon used was a stick. He has caused as many as twelve injuries on different parts of the body including the head. One of these was a fracture of the left arm & Manilal could not bend the arm even after two months & he is still not competely cured of it. The medical evidence shows that at least seven injuries were caused by different stick blows & these included four contused wounds on the head. It is necessary that the highways are kept safe for passers-by & for that purpose offences like the present which are committed with a view to striking terror in the minds of people residing in the countryside must be punished with a heavy hand. In our opinion the wanton nature of the assault & the throats with which it was accompanied justify the sentence of three years & we therefore maintain the said sentence. We also confirm the conviction of the accused u/s 841, I.P.C. & the sentence imposed for the said offence.