BIRAJA PRASAD RAY Vs. NARENDRA PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack acquitting the appellant of charges under sections 330 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code (TJ P. C.T for short).

(2.) The case of the appellant in a nutshell is that he is a former member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly and an active politician. The respondent was the Officer-in-Charge of Mahanga Police Station. Early in the morning of 29.1.1978 the appellant was arrested by the respondent in a proceeding under section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) in Non-F.I.R. Case No. 9 of 1978 and was brought to the police station and locked inside the Hazat. Soon thereafter, three police constables by force laid him on the floor, made him naked and pressed both his hands. The respondent brought a hot iron pipe and attempted to press the same on his naked body. The appellant resisted and kicked, as a result of which, the hot iron pipe came in contact with his ankle joint resulting in a burn injury. He also received injuries on both his hands. At about 1 P.m. he was sent under hand-cuff to Cuttack for production before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. When he was actually produced before him on 30.1.1978, he made an oral report about the above incident which was reduced into writing by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack and was treated as a complaint.

(3.) The plea of the respondent to the charges framed against him under sections 330 and 352 I.P.C. was that in connection with Non-F.I.R. Case No. 9 of 1978, he had arrested the appellant. At the time of arrest, the appellant had an injury on the right ankle which was bandaged with signs of pus. When he enquired from the appellant as to how he had sustained injury, the appellant had told him that he had fallen down from the motor-cycle resulting in the injury. For abundant caution, he requisitioned the services of the Medical Officer of Mahanga to examine the appellant, but he refused to be examined. The respondent denied the allegations made against him in toto and stated that on account of the arrest, the appellant, a local political big wig made false accusation against him.