IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA nd ON THE 2 OF AUGUST, 2024 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2510 of 2024 SMT. KUSUM Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri V. S. Mishra - Advocate for the applicant.

Ms. Vineeta Sharma - Panel Lawyer for the State.

Reserved on : 25.07.2024 Pronounced on : 02.08.2024 ORDER This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment delivered on 20.4.2024 by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Singrauli, headquarters Waidhan, in Criminal Appeal No.25/2023 by which the judgment of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Waidhan, district Singrauli, delivered on 11.4.2023 in RCT No.2914/2013 was confirmed. Thus, the applicant (hereinafter referred to as “accused”) stands convicted for the offence of Section 332 IPC and has been sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and additional three months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine.

2. Admittedly, the accused was posted as B.E.E. at Community Health Centre and she was suspended from the post prior to the incident. It is also admitted that after this suspension she was attached to Community Health Centre, Chitrangi.

3. Brief facts relevant for the decision of this criminal revision are that complainant Himanshu Pratap Singh was posted as Karyakram Adhikari Prabandhak during the period of 2009-2015 at Singrauli and the incident is of the year 2013; the complainant was present in the District Hospital on the date of incident 28.9.2013. He was in the chamber of Dr. Badri Singh when around 12:00 hours accused entered chamber and attacked the complainant with her umbrella; she was speaking foul and abusive language and was also threatening the complainant; a complaint was made by victim-complainant Himanshu Pratap Singh to the Collector upon which crime was registered and the matter was investigated. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the trial followed. Ultimately, the judgment of conviction and sentence was passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class which was upheld by the appellate court under the impugned judgment. The accused was acquitted of the offence of Section 452, 294 and 506 Part II IPC by the trial court itself.

4. The grounds raised in this criminal revision are that the judgment passed by the learned courts below are bad in law, improper and illegal; it was ignored by the courts below that victim-complainant (P.W.6) was a contractual employee at the time of incident and was not discharging any official duties, therefore conviction of accused under Section 332 IPC is bad; there is material contradiction about the date of incident; further, there no injuries were proved on the person of complainant; the enmity between the two sides was also an established fact; claiming that there was no substance in the prosecution story, it was requested that the revision should be allowed and the accused should be acquitted.

5. State has strongly opposed this criminal revision claiming that the accused has been legally convicted and sentenced by the two courts below.

6. Both the parties have been heard and the records of the courts below have been perused.

7. The accused stands convicted for the offence of Section 332 IPC which says that a person is guilty of that offence if he/she causes voluntary hurt to any person being a public servant in discharge of his duty as such public servant or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty or in consequence of anything done by that person in lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant. Thus, there are three different limbs of this crime and they are namely, (1) causing hurt to a public servant in discharge of his duty, (2) with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty, or (3) in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in lawful discharge of duty.

8. Here, the second limb discussed above is not attra