BUDH RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the order of Sri Rajeshwar Singh, Sessions Judge, Gonda, convicting and sentencing the revisionists to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under section 324/34 IPC and a similar amount for an offence punishable under section 342 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under each count. However, the sentence of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) VIRENDRA Kumar accused is the elder brother of Arun Kumar and Smt. Kamalawati accused is their mother. Budh Ram accused is their servant. They are residing in mohalla Wazirganj, Gonda city. It is said that on 6-4-1977 at about 1 P.M. Harish Chandra PW 2 aged about 10 years son of Krishna Deo PW 1 complainant was playing outside his house with Arun Kumar son of Smt. Kamlawati accused. After some quarrel between Harish Chandra and Arun Kumar, Harish Chandra caused burn injuries on the back of Arun Kumar with the help of compass. When the matter came to the notice of the mother she sent her servant Budh Ram accused who dragged Harish Chandra inside Hhe house and beat him. Budh Ram caught Harish Chandra and the remaining two accused persons caused burn injuries with the help of heated iron rod. The complainant Krishna Deo PW 1 was not present in the house. When he returned in the evening be lodged a report at 5.15 P. M. PW 1 Krishna Deo is not an eye witness. He is father of the boy Harish Chandra. PW 5 Ram Milan was declared hostile and the name of PW 4 Sheo Dutt Tewari was not mentioned in the first information report. The learned Sessions Judge discarded the statements of Sheo Dutt PW 4 and Ram Milan PW 5 and convicted the three accused persons on the basis of the testimony of Harish Chandra PW 2. The accused denied the charge. The case of accused VIRENDRA Kumar and his mother Smt. Kamlawati accused is that these people wanted that Smt. Kamlawati should dismiss her servant Budh Ram and on her refusal the mother and her son were falsely implicated. The case of Budh Ram is that he was servant of Smt. Kamlawati accused and when Harish Chandra was causing burn injuries to Arun Kumar with the help of compass he tried to snatch it but Harish Chandra put his hand towards his back with the result that he received burn injuries on his back from that heated compass. The learned Magistrate believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the three accused persons. Under section 324/34 IPC they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. In case of default in payment of fine, each of them was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. For the offence under section 342 IPC each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The mother went up in appeal and the learned Sessions Judge reduced the sentences of the revisionists and ordered them to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under section 324/34 IPC and a similar amount for an offence punishable under section 342 IPC and in default of payment of fine they were further made to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under each count tat the sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of fine were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by this order the three accused persons have come up in revision before this Court. The statement of PW 2 Harish Chandra and the doctor clearly show that on the aforesaid date and time Harish Chandra received four burn injuries as detailed in his injury report. Half heartedly Budh Ram accused admitted that when Harish Chandra put his hand behind his back he got burn injuries. This defence is clearly absurd. The injuries received by Harish Chandra are 2.2" X 1/4" each. These four injuries are on left side back, right side in lower part of the back and right fore arm. These injuries could not be caused by heated compass. So, Harish Chandra received these four injuries in broad-day-light. Budh Ram admits that some incident took place during which Harish Chandra tried to cause injuries to Arun Kumar and he himself tried to snatch away the compass, so the occurrence took place in day light and there was no motive for Harish Chandra to leave the real culprits and to make a false substitution. There was absolutely no enmity or motive etc. to concoct such type of story and implicate these three accused persons. The defence version as set up by Budh Ram, servant of Smt. Kamlawati is clearly false as the injuries received by Harish Chandra could not be caused by compass. So, it is established that on the aforesaid date, time and place Harish Chandra caused burn injuries to Arun Kumar, younger son of Kamlawati and when this matter was brought to the notice of Smt. Kamlawati these people naturally got annoyed and Budh Ram accused brought him inside the house and while he; was holding the two accused persons started causing burn injuries with the help of heated rod. It is admitted by both the parties that Harish Chandra caused burn injuries to Arun Kumar with the help of compass. Naturally, it would have annoyed the mother and elder brother of Arun Kumar as well as their "faithful" servant (Budh Ram accused). Arun Kumar was too young to take any revenge. So, naturally his elders etc. did the same. Harish Chandra tried to cause burn injuries with the help of compass so they could lose balance and in retaliation cause injuries with the help of iron rod. So, the prosecution has successfully connected the three accused with the crime.

(3.) LOVE, hatred, ambition, hypocrisy,, consideration of religion, rank, fortune, caste, creed are as yet unknown to the ,children. Preconceived notions, nervous irritation or long experience normally do not lead them to form an erroneous impression or to formulate complicated scheme for false implication. These great advantages accompany certain corresponding drawbacks. They use same words as we do but they convey to them a different idea. They perceive things differently. Their conception of magnitude, pace, beauty, distance etc. is not like that of elders. What we ignore they fear or take delight. Their horizon is limited. They cannot perceive many things which we are able to note easily. They are easily susceptible to tutoring. They may easily borrow from imagination. They may easily believe what they are told. They can be easily taught stories. They live in a world of make believe so that they often become convinced that they have really seen the imaginary incident which they are taught to relate. As such conviction can be based on the statement of a child but the testimony must undergo strict judicial scrutiny -a - cautious approach.