STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT Vs. NAJGAD GANGARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Additional District Magistrate, Bhind, Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, tried accused Najgad (Thanedar) under Section 330, Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Shive Dayal, who died while in Police Custody and also under Section 331, Indian Penal Code for causing grievous hurt to Bhawani. He acquitted the accused of the offences he was charged with, but convicted him under Section 323, Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to Shive Dayal and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 200 only, and, in default to two months' simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the decision, the Government of Madhya Bharat has filed this appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for convicting the accused under Sections 330 and 331, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE facts leading to this appeal are somewhat unusual. A theft took place in the house of one Chhotey Gaderya, resident of village Bilao within the jurisdiction of Thana Omarai, Bhind. In connection with its investigation, Najgad, the Officer -in -Charge of the Police Station Omarai, known as Thanedar, arrested Shive Dayal, a Chamar of that village, on 5 -12 -50 and while he was in Police custody, he died on 9 -12 -50. An inquiry under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was held into the cause of death and Mr. Pindharkar, another Magistrate, who held the inquest came to the conclusion that three persons, Najgad, the Station Officer, Omarai Police Station, Phalwansingh, a constable and Vishwanath Singh a resident of village Bilao, were involved. In his findings he also recorded the fact that apart from beating Shive Dayal, these three persons also gave a beating to Bhoopala and Bhawani. The Magistrate after the inquest (it was Miscellaneous Case No. 129 of 1950) started regular criminal proceedings (Case No. 32 of 1951) under Sections 330 and 331, Indian Penal Code against Najgad, the Sub -Inspector, Phalwan Singh and Vishwanath Singh and fixed 10 -5 -1951 for summoning the above three accused. In the course of these proceedings, Boopala and Bhawani also filed a complaint on 18 -5 -51, on the ground that the order passed in the inquest proceedings, did not award any punishment to the accused. The trial Court amalgamated the complaint with the case before it, and proceeded further in the matter.

(3.) IN this appeal, a preliminary objection is taken that the appeal is time -barred. It is said that the judgment under appeal was delivered on 26 -2 -54. According to Article 157 of the Limitation Act, the period within which an appeal should have been filed was six months from the date of the order appealed from. But this appeal was filed on 14 -9 -54, which is 19 days beyond the period of limitation.