KALIKA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions arise out of the conviction of the four accused under Sections 323/34, I.P.C. by the appellate Court below and the sentence of Rs. 400/- each in default three months' rigorous imprisonment out of which Rs. 500/- has been ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant Sri Krishna Misra. Criminal Revision No. 1565 of 1980, has been filed by the accused and was pressed only on the question of sentence while Criminal Revision No. 1676 of 1980 has been filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the accused persons under Sections 325/34, I.P.C.

(2.) According to the findings of the lower appellate Court the accused persons had beaten the victim; Kalika Singh by a lathi and the other three accused by fists. The lower appellate Court also found that the victim suffered no less than 15 injuries, 5 contusions, 5 abrasions, 2 traumatic swellings, 2 complaints of pain and one lacerated wound on the left thumb. The left thumb had also a fracture of the phalanx. These details are found in the trial Court's judgment also. The learned Counsel for the complainant also showed to me a copy of the injury report which discloses limbwise the distribution of the injuries to be as follows:

(3.) The reasoning of the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained. After the finding that the four assailants one armed with lathi and the others by fists gave a beating to the victim and that the injuries including the grievous injury of the thumb were caused during this beating the bare fact that there was also an admitted fall during the beating cannot justify the finding that the thumb fracture under a lacerated wound was caused by the fall and not by the lathi. This finding is based on mere surmises and conjecture. The witnesses did not have to specifically say that the thumb injury was caused by a lathi until a specific question about the source of the thumb injury was put to the victim. This apparently was not done. Therefore, the finding should have been that the injury was caused in the course of the beating. But apart from this even if it is taken that it was caused while the man fell during the beating that does not dissociate it from the beating to such an extent as to destroy the causal connection. Considering the number and nature of the injuries, the fall and immediate and natural consequences of the fall would remain the result of the beating as much as direct injuries resulting from the blows inflicted. The argument about the thumb injury being unlikely from the lathi blow as the right hand is generally used defensively against a lathi attack ignores the position that in this case not less than 5 injuries are on the left leg, foot and elbow joint. If the blow is coming from the left even a right handed man may very well stick out the left hand to ward off the blow. I would, therefore, hold that the finding about the lathi injury not being caused by the assailants is palpably erroneous and legally perverse finding that it was so caused.