MOHAMMED HANEEF Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is an application for revision by Mohammed Haneef, a khansama of the Balaghat Circuit house, who has been convicted Under Section 354, I.P.C., and fined Rs. 65 in the Court of the Tahsildar, Balaghat. His appeal was dismissed by the District Magistrate. It is admitted that Mohammed Haneef bought some grass from the complainant Mt. Ganeshi in the Balaghat bazaar for one anna and that she had accompanied him carrying it to his quarters in the circuit house. There, according to the complainant, P.W. 4, the accused caught hold of her inside the tatta of his house, trying to stop her from crying by putting up his hand over her mouth, and offered her Rs. 2 if she would allow him to have intercourse with her. Then however he let her go on hearing cries from inside the house and she ran away. The story of the accused is that, when they got back to his quarters, he gave the grass to his rabbit which would not touch it; so he asked Ganeshi to take back the grass and offered her a quarter anna if she would do so. This she refused to do and a quarrel started, as a result of which she made this false complaint.

(2.) THE offence is alleged to have occurred at about 11 a. m. when there were several people about in the circuit house compound and while Sessions were being held in the circuit house. The sketch at p. 37 of the trial Court's record shows that on the east side of the accused's house there is a chick purdah at the point P and that on the west side, which is the back of the house, there is a tatta. From the evidence of the investigating officer Sadashiv Rao, P.W. 2, it will be seen that there are no houses in the rear of this house, and the circuit house and other buildings in the compound, as might be expected, are in front of it to the east. It is therefore unlikely that the offence would have been committed at this time of the day in front of the accused's quarters, and the lower Courts have held that it was committed at the back inside the tatta where the accused would be free from the observation of outsiders, though it seems improbable that he would venture upon an assault like this when the women of his family were in the house.

(3.) THE lower Courts have remarked that it is unlikely that a girl of this sort would make a false complaint of assault against the circuit house khansama, but it appears to me to be more unlikely that the khansama would attempt to make such an assault on her at such a time with so many people about. The conviction is therefore set aside and the accused is acquitted. The fine, if paid, must be refunded. Confusion is apt to be caused if a Magistrate when recording evidence enters the name of a witness as Sadashiv Rao and then refers to that witness in his judgment as Mr. Garde, particularly if he gives him the wrong number. The object of dividing a judgment into numbered paragraphs is to facilitate reference thereto, and that object is not achieved if one paragraph extends over two typewritten pages.