V R MURTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated the 26th October, 1993 passed by the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1992 under Section 333 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The material facts involved in this appeal inter alia are that the appellant gave a fist/blow on the face of one Shri Chinnappan, an employee of the Port Blair Municipal Board whose duty was to release water in the Village Shadipur where the appellant used to reside at that time. It is the contention of the appellant that there was scarcity of water in the area and the appellant insisted that the said Chinnappan should not put off the switch. The prosecution case is that duty of the petitioner, Chinnapan is to release the water by opening the valve and thereafter close the same. The Appellant insisted that the water should not be stopped since there was scarcity of water. Since the said Chinnappan was duty bound to stop the release of water by closing the switch/valve, the said Chinnappan had to do so and accused appellant gave a fist/blow on the face of Chinnappan. It is further alleged that in the year 1991 there was acute scarcity of water and the supply was delayed by an hour so that he opened the concerned valve of the water pipe line at 7.15 A.M. and kept it open upto 8.15 A.M. and then closed the same. Immediately, the accused Chinnappan, whose name he did not know then, came there and asked him as to why he has closed the valve of the pipe line. He told him that it was then the time to open another valve, but the accused/appellant asked Chinnappan to open the earlier valve again for giving supply of water for further time more. It has been alleged that Chinnappan again told him that as per office orders he was to give water only for one hour for a particular area and if the accused wants supply of water for further time, he may go to the office and obtain orders to that effect. It is alleged that as soon as Chinnappan said so to the accused/appellant, the accused dealt a blow on the left side of his face, as a result whereof one of his tooth on the lower jaw got loosen and bleed profusely. Chinnappan then washed his mouth with water and straightway came to Municipal Office and reported the matter to the Assistant Engineer Sundara Murthy, P.W. 2 but he could not give the name of the accused as he till then did not know his name.

(3.) The question before us is, if the offence comes under the provision of Section 333 of Indian Penal Code being grievous hurt inflicted upon a Public servant, or it is a question of simple hurt under section 332 Indian Penal Code.