EMPEROR Vs. BANDHOO AHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bandhu Ahir, Badal Dube and Magan Beldar were placed on their trial before the Additional Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur for offences under Secs.307, 325 and 333, Indian Penal Code. They were acquitted of offences under Secs.307 and 333, Indian Penal Code, but were convicted of an of fence tinder Section 325, Penal Code. The Local Government has filed an appeal against the acquittal of the three accused under Section 333, Indian Penal Code, and is the appeal of the Local Government the accused are represented by Mr. Kalim Jafri; Badal Dube and Magan Beldar have appealed against their conviction under Section 325, Penal Code, and are represented by Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Misra. Bandhu has remained content with his conviction under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. We have heard the learned Government Advocate in support of the Government appeal and Mr. Jafri in answer. We have also heard Mr. Misra who has taken us through the entire record in connection with, the appeal filed by Badal and Magan.

(2.) The facts alleged by the prosecution are that Nurul Huda, the Sub-Inspector in charge of Gola thana, had made several reports against the three accused and therefore on 7 February 1934 when the Sub-Inspector had gone to Gorakhpur to give evidence in a criminal case the three accused surrounded the ekka of the Sub-Inspector and struck him with lathis. Bandhu was caught on the spot, but the other two managed to run away. Before the committing Magistrate the two accused, Badal and Magan, denied the charge and said that they were falsely implicated and Bandhu simply said that he was caught in the Court compound at Gorakhpur but he did not beat the station officer of Gola as Jiaratcd by the prosecution witnesses. Before the Court of session Badal and Magan stuck to their denial but Bandhu raised a plea, of self defence. He said that the darogha had met him at Kauri Ram and he (Bandhu) had come to the Court at Gorakhpur and got an application written against the darogha. The darogha came up in an ekka and saw Bandhu's application and abused him and beat him with stick and fists and also gave slaps. When she darogha was snatching away the application Bandhu also beat him with a lathi.

(3.) After a magisterial enquiry the accused were committed to the Court of session and in support of the prosecution case the Sub-Inspector and eleven other eye-witnesses were examined. The Sub-Inspector says that from May 1933 he had made as many as eight reports in the diary against the three accused or some of them and members of their party. He had a warrant for the arrest of Bandhu and he had executed Magan's warrant. On 7 February 1934 he came on an ekka to the collectorate as he had challaned the case of Tehl against Sheoraj and the case was pending in the Court of Munshi Abdul Hamid Khan, Deputy Magistrate, where the Sub-Inspector bad come to prosecute the case and to give his evidence. He goes on to say that just as he was coming down from the ekka Bandhu gave a lathi blow on the left calf and another on the left knee. He fell down from the ekka and then Badal gave him a lathi blow on the head. Afterwards Magan gave a lathi on the head, but the Sub-Inspector warded it off with his hand and the lathi struck the thumb of the right hand. He says that he then got dazed and the accused struck him with some more lathis. He was unable to pursue his duties up till 2nd March 1934. Chandrika Prasad, a naik constable, was also present in the Court compound at the time of the assault and he says that he saw the Sub-Inspector being beaten as he got down from the ekka by Bandhu and Badal and a third man who was not known to him. He speaks of the arrest of Bandhu and says that the kotwal Abdul Rahim Khan who had come on the spot directed the witness to go to the kotwali with the accused Bandhu to make a report. The witness then went to the thana and made the first information report which was recorded at 2 p.m. In this Chandrika Prasad gave all the facts which were observed by him. He also says that the Sub-Inspector had lost his consciousness and that he was not able to speak and that is why the name of Magan, who was very well known to the Sub- Inspector, was not mentioned in the first information report. (After discussing the evidence, his Lordship held that grievous hurt was caused. The Judgment then proceeded). The question of the particular offence of which the accused are guilty is the subject of the Government appeal and requires to be determined. The learned Judge says that on the day of the occurrence the Sub-Inspector had not come to launch proceedings under Section 110, Criminal P.C., against Bandhu. He had come to prosecute another case and there is nothing to show that to deter him from discharging that duty this assault was committed. Further it cannot be said that the Sub-Inspector had come that day in dearch of Bandhu against whom, it is said that there I was a warrant. We are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has taken a wholly unwarranted view of the provisions of Section 333, Indian Penal Code. Under that provision of law a person who causes grievous hurt to a public I servant can be convicted under three circumstances: (1) when grievous hurt is caused while the public servant is in the discharge of his duty as such public servant; in this case motive and object arc irrelevant, (2) when a public servant: is prevented or deterred from, discharging his duty as such pubvant in this case it is necessary that the object of the accused should be to deter the public servant from discharging his duty but it is not necessary to prove any motive (3) when, the public servant is assaulted in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that public servant I in the discharge of his duty; in this case it is not necessary that the public servant should he discharging his duty at the time of the assault. The object too is irrelevant. The only thing that has got to be seen is the motive. In the present case there cannot be the slightest doubt that the assault was made on the Sub-Inspector in consequence of what he had done against the three accused and the I third circumstance mentioned by us undoubtedly applies. We are therefore of I the opinion that the accused ought to I have been convicted under Section 333, Indian Penal Code, and the acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is incorrect.