NAJO MAL Vs. DAYA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer dated 27 -2 -1980 whereby the learned Magistrate has ordered for the framing of the charges under Sections 323, 392, 147 and 114 I.P.C. against the accused -petitioners but he has discharged all the accused -petitioners of the offence under Section 504 I.P.C.

(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision briefly stated are: that on 19 -10 -1969, a death feast was arranged by the Ramani -Maheshwari family of Barmer. It is alleged that the non -petitioner Dayaram brought this fact to the notice of the Police as well as to the Sub -Divisional Officer and then accompanied them to the house of Premchand. There, the Police seized the cooked meals lying in the Nohra. Dayaram suspected that cooked meals were being taken out of the house. He complained about it to the Sub -Divisional Officer. When they went into the Nohra, it. is alleged that accused Gordhandas, Assandas, Ambaram and other relations of the accused -persons tried to attack him but the S.H.O. intervened and he then ran away from that place. It is alleged that in that scuffle, accused Gordhandas snatched a golden chain from him and also tore his clothes. It is further alleged that when he came out of the house, all the accused -petitioners came out and encircled him and cried that Dayaram should not be allowed to leave the place. They also hurled at him filthy abuses regarding his mother and father. It is alleged that accused Bishandas picked up a stone and inflicted an injury near his eyes. Dayaram then went out and told about it to his brother Chetandas who was present there. Chetandas tried to go on a cycle to the Police Station but his cycle was snatched and his father Bhugromal's clothes were torn by the accused -persons. He lodged its First Information Report at Police Station, Barmer. In that report, although it has been mentioned that a chain was snatched and an injury has been inflicted near the eyes of Dayaram but the names of the assailants and the snatcher have not been disclosed. In this report, it has been mentioned that when Chetandas started to report the matter the Police on a cycle, a group of persons followed him and he left the cycle on the way and came to the Police Station to report the matter to the Head Constable. It is, therefore, clear that actually, the cycle was not snatched but he left the cycle there. He has also been confronted with this portion of his FIR as well as his police statement when he was examined on oath during the trial where in, he has stated that out of fear he left the cycle. Thus, the question of snatching the cycle does not arise. The learned Magistrate has already held that no specification of the abuses has been given and so. no case under Section 504 I.P.C. is made out. Thus, we are left with only two incidents. The first incident is that, which took place in the Bada, where it is alleged that golden chain has been snatched by accused Gordhandas and the other which has happened outside the Bada where it is alleged that a stone injury has been inflicted to Dayaram.

(3.) NOW , I come to the second incident of beating. It is alleged that the accused -petitioners encircled the complainant when he came out of the Nohra and then they gave him beating and in that process, a stone was picked up by accused Bishandas which hit him on the side of his left eye. Only one injury has been found on his person. If all the ten accused petitioners have given a beating, a number of injuries could have been found but the absence of such injuries shows that he was bit by only one stone and that too, was the result of the stone thrown by accused Bishandas, and, therefore, no offence under Sections 147 and 323 I.P.C. is made out against the accused -petitioners except accused Bishandas.