BAYADABAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application filed by the petitioner-accused against her conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 325 I. P. C. Briefly stated the facts leading to the prosecution of the accused are as follows : One Deoram aged about 10 years and his mother Laxmibai reside in the neighbourhood of the accused. On 17-3-1977 at about 700 p. m. , Deoram's sister Tara-bai had been to the common water tap when she was prevented from taking water by the members of the locality, Thereafter, Deoram's mother Laxmibai and Deoram went to the water tap when Laxmibai was caught by one lady by name 'masterin'. Deoram's sister Tara-bai tried to separate them. At that time Deoram also tried to separate them. It is alleged that it is at that time that the accused gave a fist blow on the face of Deoram on account of which blow, his one tooth from the upper jaw was broken and the same came out of its socket. The next day i. e. on 18-3-1977 Laxmibai took her son Deoram to the hospital, where he was treated and allowed to go. Deoram then reported the matter to Kalachowki Police Station at about 7-00 p. m. on the same day i. e. 18-3-1977. On account of this First Information Report, an offence was registered against the accused under sec-ton 325 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused was arrested on 19-3-1977 and subsequently released on bail. After the investigation, the Police filed a charge-sheet on 2-91977 for the said offence before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Mazagaom, Bombay. What happened in the Court of the learned Magistrate is relevant for the purposes of decision in this application.

(2.) THE record and the roznama of the learned Magistrate show that on 13-1-1978 the accused was present. The copies (Sic) were not supplied to the accused. Summons was issued to the complainant and the case was adjourned to 9-2-1978. On 9-2-1978, the accused was present. Again summons was issued to the complainant which was made returnable on 23-2-1978. On 23-2-1978, charge was framed under Section 325 I. P. C. and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. Summons were issued to the prosecution witnesses returnable on 21-3-1978. On 21-3-1978, two witnesses were examined viz. Deoram and his mother Laxmibai. The F. I. R. and the medical certificate were exhibited. One of the witnesses Deoram was cross-examined by the accused. The other witness Laxmibai was not cross-examined. The prosecution closed its case and the statement of the accused was recorded. Arguments were heard and the case was adjourned for judgment to 31-3-1978. On 31-3-1978, Mr. G. B. Tirodkar, Advocate filed his appearance for the accused and made an application supported by the affidavit of the accused. In the application it was pointed out that the accused was not supplied with copies of the charge-sheet, the statements of witnesses, medical certificate, etc. , i. e. the documents enumerated in Section 207 of the Cr. P. C. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). It was therefore pleaded that no opportunity was given to the accused to meet the prosecution case. Hence it was prayed that the Court should, under the provisions of Section 311 of the Code, after supplying the accused with the relevant documents, recall the witnesses for cross-examination, and also issue summons to the medical officer, who issued the certificate in respect of the injuries sustained by the said Deoram, for cross-examination in the Court. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate by endorsing reasons on the very same application. The said endorsement reads as follows. Time was already given to accused to engage the lawyer. Even then she did not care to engage lawyer. P. P. 's record shows that copies are already fur-nised. There are no grounds for (sic) recall witnesses.

(3.) IT appears that thereafter, the learned Magistrate proceeded to pronounce his judgment by which he convicted the accused of the offence under Section 325 I. P. C. and sentenced her to suffer S. I. till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default to suffer R. I. for one week. It is this order which is challenged in this revision application.