SHAHBUDDIO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 31st Oct. 1956 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur City. The learned Sessions Judge under the aforesaid judgment was dealing with an appeal filed by the accused petitioner before him against the judgment dated 7th Dec., 1984 of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 14, Jaipur City, Jaipur convicting the accused-petitioner under Sec. 332 Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo 5 months rigorous imprisonment. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part and while acquitting the petitioner of the offence under Sec. 332 IPC., for which he was convicted by the Trial Court, convicted the accused petitioner under Sec. 353 Penal Code and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of payment of fine it was ordered that the accused shall suffer two months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Mahendra Kumar Gatg P. W. 3 was posted as Assistant Engineer in Workshop Jaipur with the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short 'RSEB The accused-petitioner was also working under him in the workshop as Helper. It was the duty of Mahendra Kumar Garg to mark the petitioner present or absent in the Attendance Register. It was alleged that a few days before J 8th Nov., 1978 Shri Mahendra Kumar Garg had marked the petitioner absent in the Attendance Register and, therefore, on 18th of Nov., 1978 at about 8.30 a. m. when Shri Mahendra Kumar Garg was going from his house to his office on Moped No. RSG 30Q7, the accused-petitioner stopped him on the way and told Shri Garg as to how he could dare marking him absent in the Attendance Register. The accused petitioner also told to Shri Garg that Shri Garg cannot go to the office after marking him (petitioner) absent, The accused-petitioner was also accompanied by two persons and all of them gave beating to Shri Garg who received an injury on his left temporal region, and large number of passengers by were attracted and the accused-petitioner and others made their escape in a tempo. Shri Garg then made a report to the Ex. E. N. The injury of Shri Garg was examined and vide Ex P. 3 it was found that he complained of pain on right temporal region and face right side, outside to eye but no mark of injury was seen.

(3.) A charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner under Sec. 302 and 353 Penal Code but a charge only under Sec. 332 was framed against the accused-petitioner on 13th of June, 1979. Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. On behalf of the prosecution 10 witnesses, including Shri Garg P W. 2 were examined, and, thereafter the accused-petitioner was examined under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. and he stands on a plea of denial. The accused-petitioner examined D. W. 1 Sharfuddin who is the real brother of the accused petitioner and who prepared section-windows. He was examined in support of the defence plea that some amount was outstanding for the section-windows made by Sharfuddin and Shri Garg was not paying the same. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not accept this plea and therefore, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced and his appeal was partly accepted and he was convicted under section 353 IPC.