Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
K. LAHIRI, J.
SURESH NARAYAN ROY
VERSUS
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Criminal Appeal No. 68 (J) of 1976,
Decided on : 4 -1 -1978.
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION 325, 353 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE] - [INJURY, GRIEVOUS, ASSAULT, PUBLIC SERVANT] - The court analyzed the evidence and found that the accused had assaulted the victim, a school teacher, with a ruler, causing grievous injury. The court held that the accused's conviction under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing grievous hurt was valid, but set aside his conviction under Section 353 of the IPC for assault on a public servant, as the prosecution failed to prove the necessary intent.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a teacher, was convicted by the trial court under Sections 325 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for assaulting the headmaster of his school with a ruler, causing grievous injury. The accused appealed the conviction, arguing that the injury was not grievous, that the conviction under Section 353 was not sustainable, that the police investigation was biased, and that the sentence was too severe.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had assaulted the victim with a ruler, causing grievous injury. The court also found that the accused's conviction under Section 353 of the IPC was not sustainable, as the prosecution failed to prove the necessary intent. The court rejected the accused's other arguments, finding that the police investigation was not biased and that the sentence was not too severe.
Issues: 1. Whether the injury caused by the accused was grievous? 2. Whether the accused's conviction under Section 353 of the IPC was sustainable? 3. Whether the police investigation was biased? 4. Whether the sentence imposed on the accused was too severe?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the injury caused by the accused was grievous, as it was a dislocation of the shoulder joint, which falls under Section 320, fourthly and seventhly, of the IPC. 2. The court held that the accused's conviction under Section 353 of the IPC was not sustainable, as the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had the intent to prevent or deter the victim from discharging his duty as a public servant. 3. The court rejected the accused's argument that the police investigation was biased, finding that there was no evidence to support this claim. 4. The court held that the sentence imposed on the accused was not too severe, considering the age of the accused, the strained relationship between the accused and the victim, and the accused's repentance after the assault.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the accused's conviction under Section 353 of the IPC and reducing the sentence under Section 325 of the IPC to the period already undergone by the accused.
1. An ugly, disgraceful, reprehensible and incongruous incident quavered the academic tranquillity of the Government Middle English School at Hari village in Arunachal Pradesh on 24-11-1975. A school is a sacred institution where education is imparted to build up moral, social and physical character of the students. School teachers are the maestroes, educators and preceptors who dispense, train, instruct and prime the young minds at their formative stage. They deserve our highest esteem and respect as they are the builders of our national character.
2. The prelude could have been avoided but I could not help myself in giving vent to my impulse in view of the shocking-cum-tragic episode.
3. The summary of the incident in a condensed form may be set out as follows :-
P. W. 5 Jatindra Mohan Das was the Headmaster of the Government Middle English School at Hari village in Arunachal Pradesh. In that capacity he had issued an order to all the teachers informing them about the ensuing half-yearly examination and requested them to set question papers for the said examination. The accused was one of the teachers of the school serving under P. W. 5, Das. All the teachers took note of the said order (which has been proved and marked as Ext. 3') but, however, the accused appellant ignored to note it. As the accused did not sign and take note of the order, P. W. 5 J. M. Das requested the appellant to take note of the order. Instead of following the usual practice of just noting down the contents of the order the appellant made certain oblique remarks in the order book, Ext. 3' on 24-11-75. The Headmaster took exception and made an observation in the Order Book to that effect (vide page 51 of the paper book). P. W. 5, the Head-master, was sitting in the office-cum-common room and was engrossed in some work. The first period being over, P. W. 1 Hage Tada, P. W. 2 S. C. Kantha and P. W. 3 Bankoi Yirang arrived at the office-cum-common room where P. W. 5 J. M. Das was working. Thereafter, it is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant entered the office-cum-common room, picked up a ruler (straight stick or cylinder of wood used in ruling paper or Ikies) and dealt blows on P. W. 5 J. M. Das in presence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3. However, with the help of the teachers and the students, the accused-appellant was taken out of the room. J. M. Das was injured and taken away from the place. In due course an information was lodged to the Deputy Commissioner about the incident and the same was sent to the Investigation Cell, Subansiri, Zero; a case was registered under S. 325 read with S. 353 of the I. P. C. against the appellant. The first information report has been proved as Ext. 4' and it contains the names of P. W. 2 S. C. Kantha, P. W. 1 Hage Tada and P. W. 3 Bankoi Yirang as witnesses to the occurrence. The injured was examined by a doctor, who found the following injuries on the person of Shri J. M. Das:-
"(a) dislocation of the right shoulder joint.
(b) One haematoma about l" in diameter over the top of the right shoulder joint about six inches away from the root of the neck."
According to P. W. 4 Dr. D. K. Dutta, the nature of the injury was grievous and it could be inflicted by a weapon like the ruler (which was exhibited as Ext. 1). After due investigation a charge-sheet having been submitted the case came up for trial before the Deputy Commissioner, Subansiri, Zero, Arunachal Pradesh.
4. On behalf of the prosecution six witnesses were examined. The accused was examined and it appears clear that he did not deny that he had beaten P. W. 5 J. M. Das with the ruler but, his plea was that he had been threatened by P. W. 5 J. M. Das and abused in slang Assamese (the slang word or words were, however, not mentioned by the accused in his statement); the accused, thus provoked, had snatched away the ruler and dealt the blows three times on P. W. 5 Jatindra. The learned Deputy Commissioner, on perusal of the evidence and the plea taken up by the a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
