VISHWANATH Vs. SURESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VISHWANATH complainant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of Sri M. C. Gupta, Munsif Magistrate Havali, Farrukhabad dated 8-3-1978 acquitting Suresh Singh accused of offences punishable under sections 323 and 504 I. P. O.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that the complainant Vishwanath has been looking after the fields of his Bhawaj Smt. Gayanwati who is the daughter-in law of his Bau. He had planted about 100 Sheesham and Asia Queen trees around his field. Suresh Singh accused had uprooted some of those trees. Accordingly Smt. Gayanwati had protested to him as a result of which he entertained grudpe against her and the complainant. On 16-9-1976 at about 8 A. M. Smt. Gayanwati was standing outside the door of her house. Suresh Singh accused arrived there and abused her saying that she had given much prominence to her brother-in-law (Bahut Charha Rakkha Hai). In the meanwhile the complainant Vishwanath had reached there. Seeing him the accused advanced to attack him. THE complainant entered the house. THE accused followed him inside the house and beat the complainant in the Angan of the house with lathi. THE incident was seen by Bahadur Singh and Badan Singh. THEy had actually intervened to save the complainant. THE report of the incident was lodged by Smt. Gayanwati at the police station but the police did not record the fact that marpit was done inside the house. Accordingly the complainant filed a complaint dated 5-10-1976 in the court. Vishwanth complainant was medically examined by Dr. S. C. Govil (PW 3), Medical Officer, District Hospital, Fatehgarh, on 17-9-1976 at 5.45 P. M. According to that injury report, the complainant had suffered one lacerated wound skin deep on his head and two abrasions on other part of the body. THEse abrasions were found covered with scabs. THE said injuries were simple and the lacerated wound was caused by hard and blunt weapon like lathi. THE abrasions were caused by friction. THE duration was one and a half day. This duration takes the marpit back to 16-9-1976 at about 5-45 A. M. THE said estimation of duration was approximate inasmuch as the word " about " has been used. It would fit in with the alleged hour of occurrence.

(3.) HERE I may also point out that the charge framed against the accused under section 504 IPC was not happily or properly worded. That charge simply read that the accused having voluntarily insulted the sister-in-law of Vishwanath Singh by abusing her had committed an offence punishable under section 504 IPC. Section 504 IPC carries am important ingredient that the insult should be such which gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it very likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. Neither this ingredient was incorporated in the charge nor any evidence to that effect was led by the prosecution.