P K PALANISAMY Vs. DORAISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Palanisamy preferred a private complaint against the respondents before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode on 5/12/1988 alleging that both of them had beaten him and caused simple hurt. In the complaint he has stated that witness Ponnusamy knew about the occurrence, and he had also obtained a medical certificate, soon after he was released on bail. Along with the complaint, he produced before the Magistrate, a blood stained dothi, which according to him got so blood stained, due to beating inflicted by the respondents. Learned Magistrate on receipt of the complaint conducted an enquiry under section 202 Cr. P.C., during the course of which he examined Ponnusamy and Dr. Balasubramani as P.Ws. 1 and 2, while recording the deposition of the petitioner as P.W. 3. Wound Certificate issued by P.W, 2 was marked as Ex. P 1. Learned Magistrate by his order dated 2nd March, 1989, which runs to about 14 full pages, has discussed the evidence of all the three witnesses and then held, that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding on the complaint, and hence it had to be necessarily dismissed under section 203, Cr. P.C. It is against the order of dismissal of the complaint that the petitioner has came up in revision.

(2.) A few facts are necessary for the disposal of this revision. Petitioner is a weaver by profession attached to chantex. On 17/8/1988 around 11.30 p.m. he was apprehended by the first respondent while he was proceeding on a cycle, due to absence of cycle light. Petitioner requested the first respondent to relieve him quickly after registering a case since he was hungry. The first respondent abused him in vulgar language. Petitioner resorted at the abuse only to be besten as well. Petitioner was taken to the police station, where a case was registered against him. Later he was sent out. On 20/10/1988 a phone call was received from the police station to his office, directing him to go over to the police station. At the police station the writer informed the petitioner that he had to be present at the police station at 8 a.m. on the next morning to be taken to the Court at Perundurai. Petitioner accordingly went over to the police station at 9 a.m. on the next morning. He informed P.W. 1 and requested him to accompany him to the police station. P.W. 1 promised to follow him. The writer of the police station directed him to sit on the bench outside, and as directed by the writer he sat on the bench. Some time later, a Police constable shouted at him for having sat on the bench and abused him in vulgar language, calling him dog. When the petitioner stated that as directed by the station writer, he was seated on the bench, he was pulled by his tuft and taken before the first respondent First respondent was annoyed at the conduct of the petitioner and directed him to remove his clothes. First respondent elapsed him on his check forcibly resulting in a contusion. Against first respondent pulled him by his hair and beat him with a lathy. His signature was obtained in a blank paper and later chained to the window. Petitioner was also threatened not to divulge all that had happened inside the police station. Later second respondent on the direction of other police constables beat him with a bamboo stick resulting in bleeding injury. On 25/10/1988, soon after releases on bail, petitioner had himself examined by P.W. 2 and obtained a wound certificate Ex. P-1, showing existence contusions. When the petitioner met, his lawyer, an incorrect statement was found in the wound certificate which needed correction. Medical office could not correct it, for in the meantime the police had taken away the other copy of the wound certificate.

(3.) Prima facie P.Ws. 1 to 3 have spoken in Court, all that has been stated above. Learned Magistrate had approached the evidence, and if he was conducting a trial forgetting for a moment that the contemplation for taking the complaint on file was availability of sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint. Learned trial Magistrate has chosen to point out discrepancies between the-evidence of one or other of the witnesses and non-preferring of a complaint by the petitioner earlier in point of time, forgetting for a moment that these are matters which have to be gone into at the time of trial. Learned trial Magistrate has chosen to state in a portion of his order, that P. W s. 1 and 2 had not spoken the truth. While stating that some injuries inflicted on the petitioner could have disappeared due to lapse of time, learned Magistrate has chosen to hold, that the absence of injuries on his hand to prove that he was chained to the window, was a lacuna in the prosecution case. Even on the observation of the learned Magistrate, this conclusion prima facie appears to be rather illogical. Time and again Court have held, that in exercise of the discretionary power of summary dismissal of a complaint, the Magistrate should not allow himself to be swayed away by inconsideration, which may not be germane at that stage, and all that he could do would be to consider as to whether there was I prima facie evidence of a criminal offence which, in his judgment, would be sufficient to call upon the alleged offender to answer.