GANDHARBA RATH Vs. APARTI SAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is the appellant in this criminal appeal from an order of acquittal of the accused respondent passed by the learned Magistrate, First Class, Banki in Case No, 17C-1/91T of 1957.

(2.) The accused respondent was an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who was charged for disobeying the law with intent to cause injury under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code and also for alleged wrongful confinement of persons including the complainant punishable under Section 342, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate found the accused not guilty under either of the said sections and acquitted him. Hence this appeal.

(3.) The relevant facts, shortly stated, are these : On 20-12-1956, a First Information Report was lodged at Banki Police Station within the district of Cuttack by a local Daffadar of village Gayalbank against the complainant for alleged offence of wrongful restraint with assault etc. The Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police being the accused appellant herein is alleged to have been deputed by the Officer-in-charge of die Police Station for making investigation in village Gayalbank. The Assistant Sub-Inspector with one constable (D.W. 1) went to the village. He arrested the complainant (P.W. 1) and two others. Though all the offences were bailable offences and though the complainant offered bail, the Assistant Sub-Inspector is alleged to have refused to release the complainant on bail. The other two persons who were arrested also offered bail and they were also refused bail. It is said that even cash security was offered but was not accepted. Instead, the accused Assistant Sub-Inspector hand-cutted the complainant and the said two other persons, and took them round the village for the purpose of being put to humiliation and harassment as alleged, On 5-3-1957 the complainant filed a complaint petition against the accused Assistant Sub-Inspector on the allegations made in the said petition praying that the accused Assistant Sub-Inspector be summoned to take his trial for offences under Section 166 and Section 342, Indian Penal Code as aforesaid. The matter in due course came up for trial before the learned First Class Magistrate, Banki. The defences taken by the accused Assistant Sub-Inspector were these: The complainant and the said two persons who were arrested refused to go on bail. The accused Assistant Sub-Inspector did not hand-cuff or put a rope on the person of the complainant and the said two other persons as alleged. The Assistant Sub-Inspector denied that he confined either the complainant or any of the said two other persons in the Thana lock-up as alleged. There were eight witnesses for the prosecution including the Police Officer (P.W. 8), the Sarpanch (P.W. 5) and Bench Clerk (P.W, 7) and the other witnesses being P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 cultivators of the locality. For the defence a police constable (D.W. 1), was called. The learned Magistrate disbelieved the defence case on facts; but on interpretation of Sections 56 and 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code, acquitted the accused respondent.