DENDATI SANNIBABU Vs. VARADAPUREDDI SANNIBABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is the appellant herein. He filed a complaint alleging that the respondents caused him hurt and wrongfully confined him, offences punishable under Sections 323 and 342, I. P. C. The case as set up by the prosecution witnesses was this. P. W. 1 returned from the Shandy to the house of his brother at Devarapalle at about 6 p.m. on 20-8-55. When he was talking with his brother, A-5, a sweeper in the Panchayat Office, came there and asked him whether he had abused the President of the Board, This was denied by the complainant. After some time he started to go to the village. On the way, he stopped and spent some time in die house of the village-munsif. When he left that house-and was on the outskirts of the village, A-1 to A-5 pursued him and asked him to stop. While running P. W. 1 fell down. Meanwhile, the culprits overtook him and A-1 gave a slap on the cheek and A-2 to A-5 beat him with sticks. The victim fell down in a field transplanted with paddy. The five accused then tied his hands, took him to Devarapalle where he was produced before A-6. A-6 beat him with a cane and sent him to the rural dispensary. From there, the complainant was taken to the Panchayat Office where he was confined the whole night. At about 1 p. m. the next day A-4, A-5 and the Village watchman took him to the police station. At the station, he complained to the Station Officer about the beating and wrongful confinement. He was sent to the doctor at Kotapadu who examined him and issued the medical certificate, Ex. P. 3. Six witnesses were examined for the prosecution of whom P. W. 6 is the doctor. P. W. 1 spoke to himself being beaten and wrongfully confined. P. Ws. 3 and 4 corroborate him with regard to beating.

(2.) The defence was this. When A-5 met the complainant at his brothers house the complainant who was in a drunken state abused him and attempted to stab him with a knife. Some people separated them. Then the complainant went away. A-5 and some others waited near the village munsifs house with a view to apprehend him and produce him before the Panchayat Board President. When the complainant saw them he started running. He was chaserty them with a view to catch him for the purpose mentioned above. The complainant fell down and when they tried to catch him he attempted to stab them. They all caught him and took him to A-6 who directed that the complainant should be taken to the doctor. After obtaining the medical certificate from the doctor to the effect that he was in a drunken state they wanted the village munsif to send him to the police station, but the latter declined to do so; therefore he was Kent in the panchayat office as it was night and produced before the police station at Kodur the next day.

(3.) The trial court acquitted the accused under both the counts on these grounds. So far as the offence under Section 323 I. P. C. is concerned, P. W. 1 could not say as to which of the accused caused the injuries to him. With regard to the offence under Section 342 his finding is that accused 1 to 3 were in the picture only up to the stage when P. W. 1 was brought to the house of A-6 and after that they faded out, and so far as A-4 is concerned there was no complaint that he had anything to do with the confinement of P. W. 1. As regards A-5 and A-6 who were responsible for the detention that night, the trial court took the view that they were justified in doing so by reason of Section 59 Cr. P. C.