SATYPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the ORDER of learned AddI. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar, Camp at Behror, dated 22nd June, 1984, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as under: Under S. 333 IPC:- Two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment, and Under 5. 332 IPC - Six months rigorous imprisonment. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that a report was lodged at Police Station, Mandai, Distt. Alwar by one Hookam Singh, P.W. 2, who was acting as a Head Master of Government Secondary School, Doomroli, on that day. It was alleged in the report that at about 2.40 p.m. in the day, he came to the school and found that exchange of abuse and beating was going-on and a threatening was being given to see out-side the school and because of this the discipline was spoiled. The accused appellant came with a lathi and inflicted injury on the person of Vishambhar Dayal, and when the complainant Hookam Singh wanted to intervene, he also received a blow on his hand. The accused appellant had treated all the staff with dire consequences. On this report, the S.H.O. Police Station, Mandai, District Alwar, interrogated Vishambhar Dayal, who had taken the report to him. Vishambhar Dayal, told S.H.O. that accused Satypal, had given a slap on his face, which was not apparently visible. He however, registered the case for offences under Sections 332 and 353 IPC. Hookam Singh, Vishambhar Dayal and Han Singh, were medically examined and the Doctor, found a fracture on the right metacarple bone of Hookam Singh, and therefore, the case was altered into Section 333 IPC. It is pertinent to mention here that the medical examination of the accused appellant was also got done on the evening of 4th March, 1983 and four injuries were found on his person.

(2.) After investigation, a charge-sheet was; submitted in the Court of learned Munsiff and Judi. Magistrate, Behror. Since the offence was under Section 333 IPC it was committed to the Court of Sessions and tried by learned AddI. Sessions Judge, No. 2, Alwar. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses in support of its case and produced equal number of documents. Accused appellant did not lead any evidence. The trial-court found the accused appellant guilty for offences under Sections 332 and 333 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as indicate above. Aggrieved by the aforesaid ORDER, this appeal is filed.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case the First Information Report has been drawn on 4th March, 1983 at 11.15 a.m. and thus it is in-ordinately delayed by 22 hours. It is submitted that this case has been levelled against the accused appellant as a defence to the Head Master, who by taking law in his own hand and inflicted injuries on the person of the accused who has sustained as many as four injuries which had not been explained by him in the First Information Report. Assuming for amount that the First Information Report was lodged on the same day as is shown in (Ex-P3) at 6.30 p.m. then too this is a report which has been drawn during the course of investigation and, therefore, the report hits section 162 Cr. P.C It is submitted that the 1.0 has not been examined in this case which has caused serious prejudice to the appellant in as much as he would have explained the circumstances better since he himself had been in the school on that particular day. It is submitted that the case of the police was that when the report was given to the S.H.O. Police Station, Mandai, by Vishambhar Dayal, he immediately left for the spot and since there was no conveyance available, the report was taken-down on the next day. It is also submitted that there is a variance between the main report and the report which has been taken down and this could only be explained by the La. who appear before the Court II is submitted that except Hookam Singh and Vishambhar Dayal, there are no other witnesses who have supported the prosecution case and their statements are inconsistant on material points.