RAMAKRISHNA PADAYACHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision case is filed against the conviction and sentence of the learned Additional First Class Magistrate of Kumbakonam in C. C. No. 39 of 1950.

(2.) THE short facts are: The criminal revision petitioners before us were tried for offences under Sections 448, 426 and 323, I. P. C., on the foot of the following facts set out in para. 2 of the judgment of the lower court: P. W. 7 who is a graduate has opened an Ashramam by name Vivekananda Ashramam at Thillayadi for the benefit of the poor children. A boarding hostel is attached to the Ashramam and the boarders who were 10 in number including P. Ws. 2 and 3 and the son of P. W. 1 by name Dharmalingam were also given education by sending them to the schools at Thillayadi or Tirukadayur lying adjacent. The parents of the boarders used to pay small sums towards the boarding and education of their children and P. W. 7 also used to make collections from the public towards the maintenance of the Ashramam. P. W. 1 is a native of Muthupet and he is a mason by profession. P. W. 1 had work in the temple at Thiruvidakali lying adjacent to Thillayadi and he took his food at the Ashramam and stayed for the night at the Ashramam from the second week of January 1950. Accused 1 is the father of accused 2 and 3 and they all reside in Thillayadi. On the night of 18 -1 -1950 at about 8 p. m. P. W. 7 was absent from the village and P. Ws. 2 and 3 and other boarders were studying in the Ashramam building while P. W. 1 was having his food in the kitchen. At that time the three accused went in front of the bamboo locked gate to the compound of the Ashramam building and asked that the gate be opened. Before P. W. 2 went to the gate with the key, the gate was broken and accused 1 to 3 entered into the building. Accused 1 abusing P. W. 7 and threatening to injure P. W. 7 asked where P. W. 7 was and tore a tiger skin kept on an easy chair crosswise rendering it useless. On hearing the hubub in the hall P. W. 1 who was having his food in the kitchen went there, told accused 1 that P. W. 7 was away from the village and questioned their action. Accused 3 asking P. W. 1 what right he had to interfere, hit P. W. 1 on his face with the back end of a hand electric torch light. Accused 2 also hit P. W. 1 on his face with a knuckle duster. Accused 1 also beat P. W. 1 with hand on P. W. 1's back, P. W. 1 was dragged to the verandah and there also he was beaten by all the accused. P. W. 1 became unconscious when all the accused ran away. The next day P. W. 1 went to the hospital at Porayar where P. W. 1 was treated as an in -patient for three days by P. W. 9, the Medical Officer in charge. On receipt of the accident report sent by P. W. 9, the Porayar Station Head Constable recorded a complaint from P. W. 1 at the hospital. After registering the complaint as crime No. 10 of 1950 and after seizing the torn tiger skin and broken lock of the gate and after completing the investigation, P. W. 10, the Sub -Inspector submitted a charge -sheet to court.

(3.) THE entering into this compromise was subsequently disputed even by P. W. 1 and the learned Magistrate, who held an enquiry into the same as he was perfectly competent to do, came to the conclusion that P. W. 1 had entered into the compromise willingly and that he was trying to falsely resile from it, recorded the compromise and acquitted the accused of the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to P. W. 1 by accused 2 and 3 under Section 323. I. P. C. The learned Magistrate refused to hold, as he was urged to do so by the accused, that this compromise also covered the offences under Sections 448 and 426, I. P. C., against all these criminal revision petitioners and examined the evidence of both the prosecution and the defence against them and came to the conclusion that they were guilty as charged and sentenced them to petty fines.