NARHARI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARGUMENTS heard. Case diary of Crime No. 5/2000 of police station Pipat in Bijawar in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 147,323 307/149 and Section 3(1) (x) and 3(2) (v) of the Seheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 perused. The FIR was lodged on 17.1.2000 wherein the complainant Smt. Botubai wife of Mona Ahirwar stated that at about 11.00 p.m. on 16.1.2000, accused Haridas Mataiya alias Matadeen, Kilbilli, Mukundi and Narhari Richhariya Advocate came to her house, brought out her husband Mona from the house and started beating him by kicks and fists. It was also reported that she was also beaten. As a result of injuries, she and her husband both, became unconscious. The report further read that against Narhari Richhariya, some litigation is going on. The report further said that her husband was unconscious and had suffered number of injuries on his person.

(2.) IT appears that the two victims viz Botubai and Mona were sent for medical examination and assistance. The doctor on duty found that both the patients were unconscious. Mona had some injury on his lips and yet another abrasion on the left knee. He also found that Botubai had some injury on lips and was complaining of chest pain. The doctor after finding that patient remained unconscious for 10 -12 hours reported that the unconsciousness was dangerous to life and could have led to death of these two persons. In the first report, he, however, did not say what led to the said unconsciousness. He did not give the findings as to now he reached to the conclusion that there was brain concussion. The records show that one Kalla son of Bhura Kachhi informed the police on 17.1.2000 at about 9.00 a.m. and the said information was recorded in the Roznamchasana that Mona Ahirwar was lying in front of his hutment. This compelled him to reach the spot and send these two persons for medical examination.

(3.) THE first information report does not speak even a single word that the offences were committed against the victims because they belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In absence of such allegation, it would not be proper for this Court to hold that the provisions of Section 3(1 )(x) or 3(2)(v) would be attracted. If the said provisions are not attracted the bar contained in -Section 18 of the Atrocities Act would also not come into play. The injuries which are found on the person of victims are simple in nature. No body knows that on what diagnosis the said doctor has observed that the unconsciousness was dangerous to life and the concussion could lead to death. I fail to understand that how the doctor without diagnosing the reports of the patients or taking his X -ray and the other precautions, could observe that unconsciousness was dangerous to life. The injuries barring the said unconsciousness were simple in nature. It is nobody's case that either of the victim suffered a grievous injury or dislocation or fracture of tooth. The defence of the applicant Narhari Richhariya that he was falsely implicated because of the land dispute cannot be lighted aside. Similarly, the defence of the other four accused also cannot be lightly brushed aside. On 20.3.2000, the SDO (P) made certain queries from the doctor. The said doctor in his reply stated that the unconsciousness in itself was an injury and in the medical science the unconsciousness was known as brain concussion. The said doctor stated that the brain concussion was an ailment and would lead to death of the patient. According to him, injury No. 2 on the person of each of the patients led to the unconsciousness. In the alternative, he suggested that because of some shock, the patient would become unconscious. Better it is that this Court does not make any comments on the medical report on which the prosecution has relied. It is also not necessary for this Court to see about the alleged concussion of brain, because that is yet to be seen by the learned Court below.