SHANKAR SHRAVAN MAHAR Vs. RAMA ADKU MAHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by a complainant Shankar praying that the conviction of his three assailants, Rama, Goma and Baga, be changed from Section 323 to Section 325, I.P.C., and that a suitably enhanced punishment be inflicted on them. The trial Court sentenced them to pay a fine of only Rs. 10. An application was made to the Additional District Magistrate to refer the case for enhancement, but although he held that the case of causing grievous hurt had been made out and that the non-applicants had been inadequately punished he did not consider it necessary to refer the matter as the case in his opinion was not of any public importance. In most cases I should refuse to entertain such an application from a private complainant where Government has not seen fit to move. But in the present case I consider the sentence imposed to be glaringly inadequate in the case of one of the accused at least and that the judgment of the trial Magistrate, Mr. A. Hamid, Naib Tahsildar and Magistrate, Second Class, Nagpur, is so weak and illogical in its final conclusions that interference is called for. It is conceded that the High Court has power to interfere in such cases, but learned Counsel for the accused refers me to Surajmal v. Ramnath AIR 1928 Nag 58 at p. 63. All that was held there was really that the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the sentence in the special circumstances of that case. In Ali Akabbar v. Kasem Ali AIR 1929 Cal 785 at p. 787 the correct principle in my opinion was enunciated by Buckland J., who said: There is no absolute rule, and in a case where there is manifestly a ground for interference beyond all reasonable doubt, it matters not whether the ease comes before the Court of its own motion or at the instance of a private prosecutor or through any other channel whatever, and the Court will interfere.

(2.) IN Man Singh v. Reoti (1931) 18 AIR All 13 a Bench of two Judges held that it was not intended by the Code that the only remedy of the complainant was to apply to the District Magistrate to move the Local Government to apply for enhancement because the Local Government would only apply for enhancement if enhancement was required in the public interest: the High Court, it was said, did not regard the question of enhancement only from the point of view of public interest but from the circumstances of the particular case before it. In M.T. Das v. E.D. Aboo(1931) 18 AIR Rang 52 it was also held that the High Court will, in proper cases, on the application of a private person, who was the complainant in the Court below, enhance the sentence passed on the accused.

(3.) ACCUSED Rama is a young man of 25. So, to call him a young boy of tender age is inaccurate. The other two are youths of 16 and 19. These remarks of the Magistrate are injudicious as they would put a premium on hooliganism. Here the accused were the aggressors and they attacked the complainant in order to avenge themselves for a previous quarrel. The attack was made in public, and in the interests of the public peace it was desirable to impose proper sentences. As Goma and Baga were youths and did not take such a prominent part as Rama, the application of Section 562, Criminal P.C, might have been possibly considered in their case even if they had been convicted under Section 325,1. P.C.I therefore do not propose now to enhance the sentences passed on them under Section 323, I.P.C. I do enhance the sentence passed on Rama under that Section. Instead of the fine of Rs. 10, I sentence him to six months' rigorous imprisonment. The District Magistrate should issue a warrant for his arrest and commit him to jail.