State vs Najgad

The Additional District Magistrate, Bhind, Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, tried accused Najgad (Thanedar) u/s 330 Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Shiv Dayal, who died while in Police Custody and also u/s 331 I.P.C. for causing grievous hurt to Bhawani. He acquitted the accused of the offences he was charged with, but convicted him u/s 323 I.P C. for causing hurt to Shiv Dayal and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 200/- only; and, in default to two months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the decision, the Government of Madhya Bharat has filed this appeal u/s 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code for convicting the accused under Sections 330 and 331 I.P.C.

The facts leading to this appeal are somewhat unusual. A theft took place in the house of one Chhotey Gaderya, resident of village Bilao within the jurisdiction of Thana Omarai, Bhind. In connection with its investigation, Najgad, the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station Omarai, known as Thanedar, arrested Shiv Dayal, a Chamar of that village, on 5-12-50 and while he was in Police custody, he died on 9-12-50. An inquiry u/s 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code was held into the cause of death and Mr. Pindharkar, another Magistrate, who held the inquest came to the conclusion that three persons, Najgad, the Station Officer, Omarai, Police Station, Phalwansingh, a constable and, Vishwanath Singh a resident of village Bilao, were involved. In his findings he also recorded the fact that apart from beating Shiv Dayal, these three persons also gave a beating to Bhoopala and Bhawani. The Magistrate after the inquest, (it was miscellaneous case No. 129 of 1950) started regular Criminal proceedings (case No. 32 of 1951) under Sections 330 and 331 Indian Penal Code against Najgad, the Sub-Inspector, Phalwan Singh and Vishwanath Singh and fixed 10-5-1951 for summoning the above three accused.

In the course of these proceedings, Bhoopala and Bhawani also filed a complaint on 18-5-51, on the ground that the order passed in the inquest proceedings, did not award any punishment to the accused. The trial Court amalgamated the complaint with the case before it, and proceeded further in the matter.

The complaint in brief was that on a theft being committed in the house of Chhota Gaderya, Najgad, Sub-Inspector, Police, went to village Bilao for the purpose of investigation. Bhoopala and Bhawani complainants were sent for by the Sub-Inspector through the Chowkidar and in the Bada (court yard of the house) of Vishwanath Singh accused No. 3, the complainants were detained for three days and given a beating. Bhoopala received several injuries, and was in acute pain for about a month. The other complainant Bhawani was also beaten, as a result of which he sustained a fracture of his elbow and was treated in the hospital. It was also alleged in the complaint that Shiv Dayal (the deceased) was also beaten and he died as a result of the injuries inflicted on him. It is mentioned in the complaint that since a Magistrate had been enquiring into the matter (they refer to the inquest proceedings) they took no steps to file the complaint. But because in spite of the enquiry (inquest), which proved the guilty, no punishment was awarded to the three accused named above, they have been compelled to file the complaint. It is stated that the order in inquest proceedings was passed on 12-3-51 and that they filed the complaint on 18-5-51. About this delay of two months, it is said that after the order in inquiry (in which they expected the accused will be punished) it took sometime to obtain legal advice.

In this appeal, a preliminary objection is taken that the appeal is time barred. It is said that the judgment under appeal was delivered on 26-2-54. According to Article 157 of the Limitation Act, the period within which an appeal should have been filed was six months from the date of the order appealed from. But this appeal was filed on 14-9-54, which is 19 days beyond the period of limitation.

From the record of the case, it appears that an application for the copy of the judgment was given on 26-2-54, the very day the order was pronounced. Though the copy was ready on 8-3-54, yet it was not actually delivered till 23-3-54. According to rule 23 of the Madhya Bharat High Court Rules, the time when the copy is ready had to be notified to the person applying for the copy. In the instant case, no time was notified to the Public Prosecutor who had applied for the copy. There is an affidavit of Harishchandra, the Public Prosecutor and his clerk Babu Ram to this effect. If the period from 26-2-54 (when the copy was actually given) is deducted as the period requisite for obtaining a copy, this appeal is admittedly within time. The Madhya Bharat High Court sought the explanation of the copyist, who was responsible for the delay. In his reply, the copyist stated that the copy was ready on 8-3-54, and that on this day, he asked Babu Ram, Clerk of the Public Prosecutor to take delivery of the copy. The clerk replied that he would take it. The copyist reminded the clerk many times but every time the clerk avoided taking the delivery of the copy. In the end of 23-3-54, the copyist took the copy and the register to the Prosecutor Police himself (an unusual procedure) and delivered the copy in the office of the Public Prosecutor. In his explanation, the copyist tries to throw the blame on the Public Prosecutor and his clerk for not taking the copy when it was ready. But the concluding part of his explanation is significant, in which the copyist says that through his mistake, the copy remained lying with him. He has begged the forgiveness of the High Court and has promised to be more careful in the future. This explanation of the copyist is not supported by an affidavit and even without it the concluding part of his explanation, gives him away. If he had really informed the Public Prosecutor about the copy being ready on 8-3-54, then there was no reason for him to say that it was due to his mistake that the copy remained lying with him, and there was no occasion for demanding an apology in consequence. Any way, since the copyist did not notify to the person when the copy would be ready (according to rule 23 referred to above) I am of the opinion that the period from 26-2-54 and 23-3-54 when the copy was actually delivered should be excluded. In this view of the matter, the appeal is within time and the preliminary objection is overruled.

Another preliminary objection taken by the learned counsel for the accused is that in the presence of Section 38 of the Madhya Bharat Police Act (Act No. 76 of 1950), this prosecution cannot proceed, because it is time barred. The Section 38 runs thus: --

All actions and prosecutions against any person, which may be lawfully brought for anything done or intended to be done under the provisions of this Act, or under the general police powers hereby given shall be commenced within three months after the act complained of shall have been committed, and not otherwise; and notice in writing of such action and of the cause thereof shall be given to the defendant, or to the District Superintendent or a Deputy or Assistant Superintendent of the district in which the act was committed, one month at least before the commencement of the action.

No plaintiff shall recover in any such action if tender of sufficient amends shall have been made before such action brought, or if a sufficient sum of money shall have been paid into Court alter such action brought by or on behalf of the defendant, and, though a decree shall be given for the plaintiff in any such action, such plaintiff shall not have costs against the defendant unless the Judge before whom the trial is held shall certify his approbation of the action:

Provided always that no action shall in any case lie where such officers shall have been prosecuted criminally for the same act:

This section says that no prosecution for anything done or intended to be done under the Madhya Bharat Police Act shall be commenced three months after the complained act. In the instant case, the act complained of is the alleged beating by Najgad, the Sub-Inspector, Police. Now the act of beating a person or persons in the course of investigation which is the gravamen of the charge, does not lie within the scope of the Police Act. The beating could not be said to be an act in the discharge of official duty under the Police Act, because the Police Act does not provide for giving any kind of beating to those under the Police custody. In this view of the matter, this preliminary objection too is without substance and is therefore rejected.

Now turning to the facts of the case, I find that of the three accused, originally put up before the trial Court, Pahalwan Singh, constable, is dead. Vishwanath Singh, the other accused was discharged on 18-5-53. Thus we have now to consider how far Najgad, the Sub-Inspector of Police otherwise known as Thanedar is guilty of the offences he was charged with. There are two charges against him: One, of causing hurt to Shiv Dayal, who eventually died; the other, of causing grievous hurt to Bhawani.

I shall first consider the charge u/s 330 I.P C. for causing hurt to Shiv Dayal, who died while in Police custody.

In para 18 of his judgment (page 22 of the Paper-Book), the learned trial Court has stated its conclusion by saying that even if the statement of Bhoopala (P.W 2) is left out of account (because he did not appear at the time of inquest and because out of fear he did not tell the Superintendent of Police, when he had occasion to do so, that Shiv Dayal was beaten by the accused) the evidence of Bhawani (P.W 1), Ram Karan (P.W 5) and Panchama (P.W 8), goes to show that Shiv Dayal was beaten by Najgad. The trial Court however, has said that it is not proved that Najgad gave a beating in order to extort a confession and therefore convicted him u/s 323 I.P C. Let us now examine the evidence. Bhawani, P.W 1 is a most important witness, because he too was given a beating by Najgad and he has produced a medical certificate of the injuries he had sustained. It shows that he had had as many as eight contusions and abrasions. He says that a constable was sent to call him to the court-yard of Vishwanath Singh. There the Thanedar (Najgad) asked him as to who had committed the theft of Chhotey Gaderiya). When he denied knowledge of the fact, he was beaten by the Thanedar with a Danda and a whip. He begged Vishwanath Singh to intercede on his behalf. He addressed Vishwanath Singh, because the beating was done in his house. Vishwanath told him to name Shiv Dayal and then he would not be beaten. It was in these circumstances that he eventually named Shiv Dayal. After this, Shiv Dayal was brought into the house and asked if he had committed the theft. On his denial, the Thanedar and Pahalwan Singh began to beat him. Shiv Dayal became unconscious but they thought he was feigning and so they applied a lighted match to Shiv Dayal's body and burnt him at many places. And when he did not speak, they threw a cloth over Shiv Dayal and turned out the witness. This witness remained in the hospital and has produced medical certificate (Ex.P 6). The incident for which this prosecution started took place near about 5-12-50. The above statement of Bhawani was recorded on 17-12-51, almost a year after the incident. And for another two years (till 12-1-53) this witness was not cross-examined. I give these details to show in what leisurely way the prosecution proceeded in this case.

With regard to the beating of this witness, the trial Court has been prejudiced by the fact that the witness could not give the exact date as to when he was beaten and that in his complaint too, he did not state the date either. After a scrutiny of dates, there appears to be a difference of a day or two. But it is not material when we remember that it took three years to record his deposition.

The trial Court has believed this witness so far as his statement with regard to the beating given by the accused to Shiv Dayal is concerned, but has not believed him when he said that the beating given to Shiv Dayal was for the purpose of extorting a confession of theft from Shiv Dayal. But no cogent reason has been assigned for not believing this part of the statement. If the beating was given (and this the trial Court has held) then it stands to reason that the Police Officer gave the beating for some reason or other. This witness has stated that when the Thanedar called Shiv Dayal, he asked him about the theft and when he denied knowledge of it, the Thanedar and Pahalwan Singh constable both fell to beating Shiv Dayal. In these circumstances, the conclusion is almost irresistible that the beating was given for making him confess the guilt. This witness (Bhawani P.W 1) has himself received injuries and though the defense has tried to prove that the witness was beaten by the friends of Shiv Dayal, after the Thanedar had left village Bilao, for incriminating Shiv Dayal, yet, as I shall refer to it later on, this evidence of the defense carries no conviction. One of the reasons is that it is unnatural for a man not to name his assailants and in their place to substitute persons who had not beaten him. If Shiv Dayal's friend had really beaten him, then this witness would have certainly named them. The trial Court has become somewhat confused in its inference on this point, because it paid too much unbalanced attention to certain dates, to which I shall refer presently. It is said that the beating was done on 5-12-50 and Shiv Dayal was taken away on the evening of 5th December 1950 by the Thanedar. This witness went to the hospital on 10-12-50 and was examined by the doctor and treated as an indoor patient for about a month. The doctor, P.W 7 made a note in the certificate of injuries (Ex.P 6) that the duration of injuries was "about four days back". The way in which the trial court has made its deductions from these dates in this; Bhawani appeared on the 10th for treatment, and, the injuries were four days'' old. This means the injuries were inflicted on 6-12-50. But the Thanedar had left the village, Bilao on the 5th and so the Thanedar could not have beaten this witness on the 6th of December. But the significance of the word "about" four days back has not been taken into account. The word "about" shows that the injuries were inflicted near about that period. It may be a day earlier. The doctor in his cross examination says that the injuries (Ex.P 6) was correct. Taking all these things into consideration, it cannot be said that the injuries were definitely of four days duration and not beyond four days.

In Taylor's "Principles and Practice of Medical. Jurisprudence (1934)," with regard to the question as to when a wound or bruise is inflicted, it is said that "It cannot be definitely answered". At another place it is stated that "the changes which take place in the color of a bruised spot serve to aid the witness (doctor) in giving an opinion on the probable time at which the contusion has been inflicted." All these observations go to show that all that a doctor can say is the probable age of the injury. In this view of the matter if the doctor says that the injuries were four days old, he only indicated that it was near about it when the injuries were inflicted. In this view of the matter, if the injuries are taken to be five days old (which is quite within the pale of possibility), then the accused inflicted the injuries and there is no reason to disbelieve this witness. Anyway after reading the statement of this witness, we see no ground to reject it as untrue. The trial Court has also believed him partially, but we think that his statement on the whole is substantially true.

This witness has said that when as a result of beating Shiv Dayal became unconscious, a lighted match was applied to different parts of the body because it was thought that he was feigning. From the post-mortem report, it appears that there were some blisters on the body. To this extent the statement of Bhawani stands corroborated. It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the doctor has said that blisters can appear even after the death and as such it can not be said that these are the blisters caused with a match while he was alive. But this is neither here nor there. The doctor's statement is general. He did not say that the blisters found on the body of Shiv Dayal were blisters caused after his death. On consulting Taylor's Jurisprudence referred to above, I find that a blister is an essential character of a burn and that when blisters are caused during life, they contain serum, but those formed after death merely contain "air". I would have liked the doctor to say what type of blisters they were. I find a tendency in the members of medical profession, who perform autopsy, not to give reasons for the views they express. The trial Court is equally to blame in this respect. The court should put questions and make an endeavour to find out the truth. Anyway there is no circumstance in the case to show that the blisters wore caused after death. On the contrary, there is positive evidence of the fact that a lighted match was put to the body of Shiv Dayal and this naturally caused blisters.

The other two witnesses considered and believed by the trial Court about causing injuries to Shiv Dayal are Ram Karan P.W. 5 and Pancharna P.W. 8. The learned Government Advocate does not commend them to our notice. His argument has been confined to the statement of Bhawani alone.

Sitaram Sharma was the S.D M. of Bhind on 10-12-1950. Sub-Inspector Najgad (accused) submitted to him a report Ex.P 1 at 10 p.m., saying that Shiv Dayal was arrested on 5-12-1950, that the Magistrate had given a remand of 5 days, but on 9-12-50, while he was in police custody, he had an attack of pneumonia and delirium (Sannipat) and on the advice of an Umari Vaidya he was sent to Bhind Hospital where he died and that before post-mortem he may be examined. On an examination of the body by the Magistrate, the Magistrate found many blue marks on several parts of the body. There were three or four blisters also on the buttock. This excited his suspicion that the death was not natural and the Magistrate ordered the autopsy to be performed with care. This witness says that Najgad applied for remand through Ex.P 2, dated 6-12-50, but Shiv Dayal, whose remand was sought was not produced actually before him. He was told by Najgad that Shive Dayal was coming behind but he (Shiv Dayal) was never produced before him. I have no doubt that the Magistrate acted in breach of the provision of law and for this he is much to be blamed. But a question suggests itself : why is it that Najgad obtained a remand without producing Shiv Dayal ? I believe the Magistrate, when he says that the remand was obtained without the accused being produced before him and this is significant. The Magistrate has stated that he saw blue marks on the dead body. The blue marks were of course of the beating given to the accused. And he also saw some phapholas (blisters caused by burning), which again goes to corroborate what Bhawani P.W 1 has stated earlier.

Dr. Har Prasad P.W. 7, has performed the autopsy. He says that there were many abrasions on the body of Shiv Dayal A perusal of the statement shows that the doctor has not performed his duty properly and it is being suggested that because the accused was a Police-officer, the doctor wanted to help him. There is some foundation for this belief, because the post-mortem report is slipshod. In Item No. 3 (relating to cause of death), the doctor said that the death may be due to injuries, but in Item No. 4, where he should have recorded his opinion with a summary of facts in support; he has said "from the above facts, death was due to shock." But the question is -- from the shock of what ? Is this the way to give opinion with a summary of fact in support of it ? Members of the medical profession must remember that their evidence is very important and it is their duty to assist the court in discovering the truth.

Again, the doctor has not directly said that the death was due to beating given But indirectly he has stated that a shock can be created by nervousness and that a person becomes nervous when beaten. This sort of statement does not redound to the credit of a person, who belongs to the honorable profession of medicine, and is much to be deplored. I have my own doubts if the doctor ever performed the autopsy. In the post-mortem report, where the heading is "marks of recent injury", the doctor says that there are several small abrasions. But he neither gives the number of abrasions, nor has he put down their size and dimensions. He notes the presence of two blisters, but again omits to give their size and contents. The doctor has said that the abrasions found on the body of Shiv Dayal could be caused by thorns. But their is no evidence on record to show that the deceased had been to any place where the thorns were growing In fact the defense admits that the deceased was beaten by friends of Shiv Dayal.

With regard to the blisters, the doctor has stated that blisters can be formed after death. But he has not said whether these blisters were formed after death. He has called these blisters ''Phapholas'' and he says that they were not the blisters caused by burning. But Phapholas as understood all over northern India mean and signify blisters formed as a result of burn. If they were not the blisters formed by burning, it was up to the doctor to explain how they were caused. So far as his statement about these blisters is concerned, I am not prepared to believe him, because Sita Ram Sharma, S.D M., when he saw the body of Shiv Dayal found three or four Phapholas i.e. blisters caused by burning. The doctor, unfortunately is trying to be partial to the accused, an attitude which can be condemned into a strong language. The duty of an expert witness such as a doctor is, to state facts without minding words. He should give the benefit of his expert knowledge without any vestige or partiality.

An attempt has been made to make it appear as if the death of Shiv Dayal was normal. Let us turn to Ex.P 1. The accused Najgad presented an application to the S.D.M. on the night of 9-12-50, saying that Shiv Dayal was arrested on 5-12-50, saying that live day's remand was taken, but on 9-12-50, Shiv Dayal while in Police custody had an attack of pneumonia and delirium. Now the postmortem report gives a lie to the statement of accused Najgad, that Shiv Dayal was suffering from pneumonia, because in the postmortem report it is said that the lungs were normal. If Shiv Dayal had pneumonia, his lungs would have been congested and not normal.

For reasons stated above, I agree with the conclusion of the trial Court that the accused Najgad gave a beating to Shiv Dayal while he was in Police custody. I further hold that the object of the beating was to extort a confession out of him and in this view of the matter, the accused is guilty of an offence u/s 330 I.P.C.

With regard to the other question, whether Bhawani was beaten by accused Najgad or not, the trial Court has entertained some doubt about. But I think that he too was beaten by the accused.

The trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of Bhawani P.W. 1 so far as his own beating was concerned on the ground that according to Bhawani, Bhawani was beaten on the 4th and 5th of December 1950. He went to the Hospital on 10-12-50 and the doctor in his certificate of injuries said that the injuries were caused about four days back. This means that they were caused on the 6th January. But accused Najgad had left village Bilao on the evening of the 5th December, so Najgad could not have beaten Bhawani on the 6th of December. But earlier in this judgment, I have discussed the point. On authority I have stated that it is not possible for a medical man to be definite about the duration of injuries. The doctor (P.W 7) in his examination has said that the injuries were caused within four days. This means the probable age of the injury and on the basis of this statement alone, it can not be said definitely when the injuries were caused and in coming to a conclusion some allowance should be made.

Another criticism of this witness is that there is some variation in his evidence as to who came first and when the accused called other persons in the course of investigation. As I have said earlier, such discrepancies are not material specially when we take into account that the deposition was recorded about three years after the incident. For reasons already recorded I think his statement has the ring of truth about it and is substantially true.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that Bhawani filed the complaint very late on 18-5-51, whereas because the incident took place on 5-12-50. But the following facts deserve consideration: --

That the complainant is a Chamar, who was mortally afraid of the Sub-Inspector, who had given such a thrashing to his relative, Shiv Dayal that he eventually died.

That an enquiry u/s 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code was going on, in which he was examined as witness. He did not know what the purpose of the inquiry was and he thought it was a regular trial in which the accused would be punished. In his complaint he has set out all these facts, which make for delay.

Having regard to these facts, the delay is understandable. Besides this, the information which was laid before the Magistrate and on the basis of which this prosecution had already started, contained all the allegations against the present accused, including the fact of having beaten Bhawani, one of the complainant. In this view of the matter, the delay in filing the complaint is not of much consequence.

Let us now look to the evidence of defense. The accused has filed a written statement and was also examined u/s 342 Cr.PC.

The defense of the accused is that because Bhawani had named Shiv Dayal as the thief, therefore, after departure of the Sub-Inspector (accused), the friends of Shiv Dayal gave Bhawani a beating. Let us see how far this can be true.

The defense has examined Home Singh, D.W 6. He says that three days after the arrest of Shiv Dayal he saw three Chamars of Bilao beating Bhawani. The assailants were accusing Bhawani that he had named their relative Shiv Dayal and got Shiv Dayal in J trouble. But he does not know the names of the assailants. And this witness is a resident of another village. He says he saw this from a distance of six fields away. He appears to be a got-up witness because he cannot even say what the age of the assailants was.

Another witness is Dev Singh, D.W 7. He says three persons Bhoopala, Panchama and another man were beating Bhawani. But why he went to the place or was present at the place where Bhawani was beaten is not clear from his statement. He had gone to the Thanedar to make a report against the Thakurs of Dhochra, who were intermeddling with his cattle. The Thanedar told him that he would look into the matter afterwards and that at the moment he was busy with a theft case. It is obvious that he is a witness who wanted to oblige the Thanedar, because he had made a report against Thakurs and expected the Thanedar to help him.

In his defense the accused has produced Ex.D 7, which he says is an application which the villagers submitted to him when he went there to investigate the theft of Chhotey Gaderya. This application bears the signatures (mostly thumb impressions) of the residents of the village and the allegations are that Shiv Dayal is a bad character, that he often commits theft, that the suspicion of the theft in Gaderya's house is on Shiv Dayal and that Shiv Dayal often jokes fun at woman-folk of the village. This document is very queer in nature. No such applications are given to the Sub-Inspector of Police, when they visit villages. I would have understood if the Sub-Inspector, had been a Collector of the District, to whom people of the village submit their grievances. Any such submission made to the Sub-Inspector of Police is in the nature of a complaint and it should have been recorded in the Police-diary as a report. But nothing of the kind is done. The object of producing this document (Ex.D 7) is that it bears the thumb impressions of Bhawani P.W.1, Panchama P.W 8, and Bhoopala P.W 2 also. It is contended that these three persons of their own accord came forward to complain against Shiv Dayal and named him as the suspected thief and therefore their statements that they were beaten in order to name Shiv Dayal as the thief is not worthy of credence. The above named persons have stated that the Thanedar, meaning the accused, obtained their signatures, but they did not know the contents of the paper which they were made to sign. Although the defense has produced Ex.D 7 to prove that when the above prosecution witnesses themselves complained against Shiv Dayal, there was no need for the accused to beat them and compel them to name Shiv Dayal in the theft that had taken place. Yet this Ex.D 7 drives a nail into the defense story which is that Bhawani was beaten after the Thanedar had left the village by the friends of Shiv Dayal for incriminating Shiv Dayal in the theft case. Devi Singh, D.W 7, has stated that Bhoopala, Panchama and one another person gave a beating to Bhawani after the Thanedar had left. Ex.D 7 also contains the signatures of Bhoopala and Panchama. If Bhoopala and Panchama themselves voluntarily made a complaint against Shiv Dayal as Ex.D 7 is made to show, then there was no earthly reason for Bhoopala and Panchama to beat Bhawani after the Thanedar had left. It is obvious that the defense is all moonshine.

The defense witnesses do not satisfactorily establish that Bhawani was beaten by others. I would therefore reject the theory. The testimony of other defense witnesses has been discussed by the trial Court and had been held untrustworthy.

It is said that Bhawani was beaten by accused Najgad and Pahalwan Singh. Pahalwan Singh has died. Of the injuries he sustained, injury No. 1 given in the certificate of injuries (Ex.P 6) is grievous. At one place in Ex.D 1, which Bhawani admits, he says that Najgad whipped him, while a constable hit him on the hand with a Dunda as a result of which his hand was broken. This statement was made on 11-12-50, that is only six days after the injury. But in his statement before the Court, he said that a Dunda was hit by the present accused and his hand was broken in consequence. In view of this conflict, I hold that the accused caused him simple injuries with a whip and did not break his hand and therefore the accused cannot be held guilty of causing grievous hurt. The object of beating Bhawani appears to be that he should give information leading to detection of the crime. In fact, the accused wanted Bhawani to name Shiv Dayal as the person who had committed theft in the house of Chhotey Gaderiya and on his refusal to do so, Bhawani was beaten. Thus the relevant section under which he should be convicted for causing hurt to Bhawani is Section 330 Indian Penal Code and not Section 331 I.P C.

For reasons stated above, we would allow the Government Appeal. We alter the conviction of accused Najgad u/s 323 Indian Penal Code to one u/s 330 Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to Shiv Dayal in order to extort confession and sentence him to three months'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- We also convict the said accused for causing hurt to Bhawani u/s 330 I.P Code for extorting information leading to the detection of the crime and sentence him to three months'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-. Both the sentences to run concurrently. In case the fine is not paid, the accused shall undergo rigorous punishment for a further period of one month on each count.