EMPEROR Vs. SHEO SEWAK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred on behalf of the Local Government against an order of an acquittal passed by the learned trial Magistrate. Thakur Sheo Sewak Singh, the respondent, was tried in the Court below for an offence contrary to the provisions of Section 323, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate who tried the case held that the case against the accused was not established. Bhola Nath, the complainant in this case, is a young lad of about 14 years of age and is a resident of Allahabad. The respondent was the city kotwal attached to the police station in Mirzapur Town.

(2.) On 21 April 1937, the complainant along with his father and some other relations went to Bindhiachal which place, we are informed, is at a distance of about six miles from Mirzapur Town. The party had gone there for the purpose of darshan . It is alleged that on the evening of 22 April, the complainant and others went to Mirzapur Town in order to visit their relation Jagannath, At about 7- 30 or 8 P.M. they happened to pass in front of the city kotwali. In the front wall of the kotwali building, over the gate, there is a clock fixed. The complainant says that he had an electric torch with him, which he flashed over the clock in order to see what the time was. This annoyed the respondent who happened to be sitting in open space inside the kotwali building. This innocent act of the complainant appears to have given offence to the respondent. The respondent abused the complainant and enquired as to who the fellow was who dared to throw torchlight and that he should be brought in his presence. Upon this two police constables came and dragged the complainant before the kotwal. The respondent kotwal asked the complainant why he had flashed his torch. The respondent caught hold of the ears of the complainant and twisted them with some force. The complainant says that after that he was given some blows with fists and some slaps. The complainant fell down and then the respondent sent for what the complainant calls a hunter and with it gave several blows to him on his legs and thighs. The respondent also snatched the torch which the complainant had and smashed it. It was admitted by the respondent that the complainant had flashed his torch towards the police station. The respondent says that the complainant was throwing light with his electric torch on his family quarters where his wife and other family members ware. He further says that ha sent for the complainant and told him that if he did it like that again in future then he would be punished. I warned him orally and caused no injuries to him and then let him go. I then entered a report about it in the general diary.

(3.) The respondent totally denied having beaten the complainant. He attributes his prosecution to the existence of ill-feelings between him and Mr. Yusuf Imam, a local Congress leader. At the very outset we I wish to make it clear that we are hearing the present case as an appeal against the order passed by the trial Magistrate and not as a Court of first instance. When this Court is hearing a case in an appeal against an order of acquittal certain points have to be kept in view. In Sheo Sarup V/s. Emperor their Lordships made the following observations: Secs.417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. (No limitation has been placed upon their power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code.) But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusion upon facts, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he had been acquitted at the trial; (3) the right of the accused to benefit of doubt; and (4) the slow-TIOSS of an Appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.