Back
1994 Supreme(Cal) 273
High Court Of Calcutta
S. K. SEN, S. R. MISRA
V.R.MURTHY - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 3 Of 1993
Decided On : 08/26/1994
R.S.Swaroop, V.K.Gupta
The court held that the injury suffered by the victim did not amount to grievous hurt as defined under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore the accused could not be convicted under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 333 INDIAN PENAL CODE - GRIEVOUS HURT INFLICTED UPON PUBLIC SERVANT - ESSENTIALS - EVIDENCE - INJURY REPORT - OPINION OF DOCTOR - CREDIBILITY - PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT, 1958 - SECTION 4 (1) (2) - POWER OF COURT TO RELEASE OFFENDER ON PROBATION OF GOOD CONDUCT - CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant gave a fist/blow on the face of one Shri Chinnappan, an employee of the Port Blair Municipal Board whose duty was to release water in the Village Shadipur where the appellant used to reside at that time. The prosecution alleged that the appellant insisted that the said Chinnappan should not put off the switch and gave a fist/blow on the face of Chinnappan.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injury suffered by the victim did not amount to grievous hurt as defined under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also found that the accused had no personal animosity with the victim and that the incident occurred due to acute water scarcity and non-availability of water.
Issues: 1. Whether the injury suffered by the victim amounted to grievous hurt under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code? 2. Whether the accused could be convicted under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code in the absence of grievous hurt? 3. Whether the accused could be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the injury suffered by the victim did not amount to grievous hurt as defined under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. The court relied on the evidence of the doctor who examined the victim and found that the injury was not serious and grave in nature. 2. The court held that the accused could not be convicted under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code in the absence of grievous hurt. The court held that the offence committed by the accused fell under the category of simple hurt under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The court held that the accused could be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, and found that it was expedient to release the accused on probation of good conduct.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part. The conviction of the accused under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside and the accused was convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- to the injured person and another Rs. 1000/- to a charitable organization. The accused was also released on probation on good conduct for a period of one year.
( 1 ) THIS Appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated the 26th October, 1993 passed by the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1992 under Section 333 of Indian Penal Code.
( 2 ) THE material facts involved in this appeal inter alia are that the appellant gave a fist/blow on the face of one Shri Chinnappan, an employee of the Port Blair Municipal Board whose duty was to release water in the Village Shadipur where the appellant used to reside at that time. It is the contention of the appellant that there was scarcity of water in the area and the appellant insisted that the said Chinnappan should not put off the switch. The prosecution case is that duty of the petitioner, Chinnapan is to release the water by opening the valve and thereafter close the same. The Appellant insisted that the water should not be stopped since there was scarcity of water. Since the said Chinnappan was duty bound to stop the release of water by closing the switch/valve, the said Chinnappan had to do so and accused appellant gave a fist/blow on the face of Chinnappan. It is further alleged that in the year 1991 there was acute scarcity of water and the supply was delayed by an hour so that he opened the concerned valve of the water pipe line at 7. 15 A. M. and kept it open upto 8. 15 A. M. and then closed the same. Immediately, the accused Chinnappan, whose name he did not know then, came there and asked him as to why he has closed the valve of the pipe line. He told him that it was then the time to open another valve, but the accused/appellant asked Chinnappan to open the earlier valve again for giving supply of water for further time more. It has been alleged that Chinnappan again told him that as per office orders he was to give water only for one hour for a particular area and if the accused wants supply of water for further time, he may go to the office and obtain orders to that effect. It is alleged that as soon as Chinnappan said so to the accused/appellant, the accused dealt a blow on the left side of his face, as a result whereof one of his tooth on the lower jaw got loosen and bleed profusely. Chinnappan then washed his mouth with water and straightway came to Municipal Office and reported the matter to the Assistant Engineer Sundara Murthy, P. W. 2 but he could not give the name of the accused as he till then did not know his name.
( 3 ) THE question before us is, if the offence comes under the provision of Section 333 of Indian Penal Code being grievous hurt inflicted upon a Public servant, or it is a question of simple hurt under section 332 Indian Penal Code.
( 4 ) THE Appellant pleaded not guilty. The Learned Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands found him guilty of the offence under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default further rigorous imprisonment for two months.
( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the said decision of the Learned Sessions Judge, the instant appeal has been preferred.-
( 6 ) IT is the admitted position that the accused/appellant gave the blow to the said Chinnappan and as a result whereof the lateral incisor teeth on the lower jaw got loosened and he suffered injury. The question however is, if the offence really comes within section 333 of the Indian Penal Code.
( 7 ) SECTION 333 of Indian Penal Code is quoted below as under :"whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either d
