Sumati Devi vs Pratap Singh & Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

A Criminal Case No. 408 of 2007 'State vs. Pratap Singh and Others' was registered as against the present respondents for commission of an offence under Sections 227, 323, 504 & 506 of IPC at Thana Rudraprayag, District Rudraprayag.

The allegation as leveled by the complainant Sumati Devi was to the effect that on the date of the occurrence, i.e. 31. 08.2006, when she was living in a room along with the child, all of a sudden, she heard someone knocking at the door and when she went to open the door she found two persons namely Pratap Singh and Nain Singh, who were standing in front of the door, equipped with darati and lathi, for the purposes of commission of an offence under Sections 323. It was contended by the complainant Sumati Devi that as soon as she opened the door, she all of a sudden received a blow, on her shoulder, which was inflicted by Nain Singh. After hearing the hue and cry the child of the complainant Sumati Devi, started crying, and as a consequence thereto, in the pandemonium of the incident, which has occurred on the said date the two accused persons Pratap Singh and Nain Singh they dropped their weapons as they fell off from their hands and after throwing it in the open yard (angan) Nain Singh is accused of having tried to pull the complainant Sumati Devi outside the room. On hearing her cry for help it is alleged by the complainant that Pratap Singh had tried to put his hand on her mouth, so that she may not raise a voice of alarm. She contended that after a prolonged tussle between her and the two accused persons and on hearing the cry of the child, Pratap Singh also entered into the room and threatened the child of the complainant and made physical assault, it is also contended that the accused persons threatened her that in case if she raises any alarm, she would be dealt with by the accused persons. It is contended by the complainant that after hearing the hue and cry the brother-in-law of the complainant Kanahiya Singh and her Sister-in-law Smt. Jaya Devi (Jethani) reached the spot and on their arrival, it is admitted that Pratap Singh as well as Nain Singh they escaped away from the place of occurrence. On reading of the set of allegations, there seems to be some family dispute, which was going on amongst the two families with regards to the fetching of water for the purposes of irrigation, which was being objected by the complainant. She contended that she has also raise a complaint before the Pradhan of the village Mr. Dhan Singh, but he declined to visit the spot in question and to interfere in the controversy, where the incident has occurred and she contended that he had rather suggested her to go to the Patwari and lodge a complaint against the accused with regards to the said occurrence, which has happened on 30.08.2006.

After conclusion of the Trial and recording of the statement of PW2 Kalam Singh and PW3 Jaya Devi, i.e. the Sister-in-law (Jethani), PW4 the Pradhan, i.e. Dhan Singh, of the Village, and PW5 the Patwari Shyamlal, who in his examination-in-chief had contended that he was posted as such only on 28.09.2006 he had been posted as Patwari of the said area and was given an additional charge. He contended that as per the Chick No. 3/6 FIR, which was Exhibit-3, which was registered as against Pratap Singh and Nain Singh and Smt. Kirmuli Devi, the wife of Mr. Pratap Singh, the investigation was proceeded with, and as per the G.D. Entry No. 39 dated 28.09.2006, which was recorded at 4:00 PM on the said date, it showed that on the allegations of the complainant Sumati Devi and on her pointing out the Patwari was taken to the spot in question, he prepared the map, and thereafter he had directed the registration of the FIR on 03.04.2007, under Sections 277, 323, 457, 504 & 506 of IPC.

On conclusion of the Trial the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the evidence extended had considered the same and had exonerated the Kirmuli Devi because the offence under Sections 457 and 323 as leveled against her was not made out, but as far as the Pratap Singh and Nain Singh is concerned, the Trial Court has held that the offence under Sections 323, 457, 506 of IPC, they have been found guilty for commission of the said offence, but so far as the offence under Sections 277 & 504 of IPC is concerned, they have been extended with the benefit of doubt and exonerated from the same. The learned Trial Court after concluding the Trial had imposed a punishment on Pratap Singh and Nain Singh on the ground that they had been involved in causing hurt to an aged lady of 68 years of age and had tried to outrage her modesty, but there was no proof extended by the prosecution with regards to the theory of tearing of the clothes (blouse) of the victim complainant. As far as the Nain Singh is concerned, who is leveled with an allegation of inflicting a blow on the shoulder of the lady, he tried to take the defence of being the first offender and, hence, a lenient view was required to be taken as far as the offence under Section 323 is concerned. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties on the sentence had imposed a fine of Rs.500/-Rs.500/- each for commission of an offence under Section 457 and Rs.200/- Rs.200/- each for commission of an offence under Section 323 and Rs.300/- Rs.300/- each for commission of an offence under Section 506 of IPC.

As against the infliction of the penalty by the impugned judgment dated 02.02.2009 rendered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate an Appeal was preferred being Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2009 'Pratap Singh & Others vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another'. The Appellate Court by the impugned order under challenge had allowed the Appeal and had acquitted the appellant for the offence for which they have been leveled with the fine under Sections 323, 457 and 506 of IPC.

After having gone through the reason, which has been assigned while considering the statement recorded of PW1, i.e. the complainant, and on considering the language used under Section 323, there has had to be a deliberate and voluntary act, which was voluntarily intends to cause hurt on a person by an intentional assault. Section 323 is quoted hereunder:

"Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code 323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."

The allegation as against Nain Singh of inflicting a blow by his hand on the shoulders of the complainant will not amount to be causing of hurt because in the entire prosecution story as developed before the Trial Court the quantum or the nature of injury or the hurt and effect of hurt as defined under Section 319 has neither been proved or established by any independent evidence led by the complainant. Not even this, if there was an offence under Section 323 to be read with the offence under Sections 457 and 506, there has had to be a medical report in support of the contention to prove the hurt and to show the incident of hurt or bodily pain, which has been caused by the assailant, respondent herein, due to the infliction of blow by Nain Singh. The determination of the judgment impugned as rendered by the Appellate Court in its judgment dated 31.05.2010 had rightly come to the conclusion that though it shows that Pratap Singh and Nain Singh were equipped with lathi and darati, but in fact these weapons were never used at the time of the commission of the alleged offence of inflicting blow on the complainant or in making effort to pull her out of the room to hurt her because it is admittedly recorded in the statement of PW1 that on hearing the hue and cry the darati and the danda, which was being carried by Pratap Singh and Nain Singh fell from their hand and it was never utilized in the commissioning of the said offence.

Thus, in view of the findings of the Appellate Court the non specifications of the nature of injury of the hurt, which was caused by the appellant and its determination by the learned Trial Court was not accepted by the Appellate court and consequently the Appellate Court has rightly allowed the Appeal by the judgment dated 31.05.2010 holding thereof that the offence as alleged under Sections 323, 457 and 506 of IPC under the circumstances narrated in the statement of PW1 is not made out and consequently, has acquitted the respondent from the offences in question.

This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, has not find any illegality in the judgment dated 31.05.2010. Hence, the present Criminal Revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.