HARILAL TELI Vs. CHATURI TELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed under Section 417(3) Cr.P.C. by the complainant in Criminal case 4 of 1964 on the file of the Magistrate First Class -II, Imphal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur in Criminal Appeal 23/21 of 1965 allowing the appeal and acquitting the respondent of the offence under Section 323 I.P.C.

(2.) THE case of the appellant -complainant, P.W. 6 (Hiralal Teli) of Telipati, Imphal, is that at about 9 -30 p.m. on 16.10.1964 when he was returning home after witnessing Durgapuiah, accompanied by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 (Ramananda Teli, Mangalal Teli and Chirkut Teli) the respondent waylaid P.W. 6 (Hiralal Teli) near the gate of the house of the respondent and beat him with a shoe and stone causing injuries. It is his further case that he made an oral complaint to the Officer -in -Charge of the Police Station in the same night, that the Police Officer came to the scene of offence, but that he could not find the respondent, that he directed P.W. 6 (Hiralal Teli) to file a written complaint, that P.W. 6 (Hiralal Teli) filed Ext. A/1 (complaint petition) written by P.W. 4 (Tensubam Yaima Singh) before the Police, that the latter sent P.W. 6 (Hiralal Teli) to the Civil Hospital in Imphal for treatment and that P.W. 5 (Dr. Toyaima Singh) examined P.W. 6 (Hiralal Teli), the complainant on 17.10.1964 and issued Ext. A/2 (wound certificate) mentioning that he found one bruise 4' 2' on the back of the left shoulder of P. W. 6 (Hiralal Teli). Then, the case of P.W. 6 (Hiralal Teli) is that the Police directed him to seek redress in the criminal court as he sustained only a simple injury and that, accordingly, P.W. 6 (Hiralal Teli) filed the complaint petition in the Magistrate's Court on 21.10.1964.

(3.) THE respondent carried the matter in appeal to the Sesssions Court which was disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur in Criminal Appeal 23/21 of 1965. He held firstly that there was no proper examination of the respondent under Section 342 Cr.P.C. Secondly, he held that the magistrate did not mention in the operative portion of his judgment that he convicted the respondent and that the omission of the word 'convicted' is not curable by Section 537 Cr.P.C. Thirdly, he held that the evidence was not free from doubt, Fourthly, he held that Ext. A/1 was not 'affirmed' before the Court by the Police Officer. So, he allowed the appeal and set aside the -conviction of the respondent and acquitted him.