Duraikkannu vs State

David Annoussamy, J.—This is a revision petition against conviction and sentence. Two accused were arrayed in this case. The case of the

prosecution is that A-1 accompanied by A-2 went to the office of P.W. 1, viz., the Revenue Inspector of Arasur, on 8-7-1981, at 5 p.m. and

asked for an attestation of a fact which was not true, viz., that the land cultivated by A.2 belongs to A.2, whereas the land actually belongs to a

temple. Upon refusal by P.W. 1, A.1 twisted his hand. P.Ws. 2 and 3, the other officers, took A-1 outside. Thereupon, P.W. 1 sent a report to

the Collector, who in turn forwarded the same to the police. The investigating officer filed a report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. to the effect that offences

under Sections 353 and 189, I.P.C. appeared to have been committed by A-1 and A-2. Charges were framed by the court accordingly. The

prosecution examined four witnesses out of whom one is the victim and the two others employees working in the office of P.W. 1. The exhibits

were marked on the side of prosecution. No evidence was adduced on the defence side. The trial court, upon perusing the evidence and hearing

the arguments, acquitted A-2, and convicted A-1 of both the charges, and sentenced him to undergo three months of rigorous imprisonment by

judgment dt. 27-6-1983. On appeal, the conviction and sentence imposed on A-1 were confirmed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Villupuram in

C.A. 5 of 1983 by judgment dt. 12-9-1983. It is against that judgment, that the present revision case is filed.

Two grounds are urged in this revision petition. The first one is that there are vital discrepancies between the first information report and the oral

evidence in two material aspects. In fact, it is pointed out that as per the F.I.R. the accused became angry on 8-7-1981 against P.W. 1 on account

of his earlier refusal to give the attestation sought after. But in the course of trial P.W. 1 would say that the accused came on 8-7-1981, asked for

the attestation and upon his refusal on that day the accused started assaulting him. The second discrepancy is that in the F.I.R. P.W. 1 stated that

A-1, upon his refusal, insulted him in filthy language and attempted to beat him. But in the course of his depositions he would say that A-1 has

caught his hand and twisted it. These are of course material contradictions. When a public servant makes a report to his higher official which report

has been treated as the F.I.R. recording the events which happened in his office and constituting offences according to him under sections 353 and

189, I.P.C. one would expect him to give a true and exact version of what had happened. In this case, from the discrepancies noted, it is seen that

he has not given such a version. Therefore, doubts necessarily arise as to what exactly happened on that day in the office of P.W. 1, and what was

the motive for such happening.

The second ground urged is that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the whole quarrel arose on account of P.W. 1 having taken

the amount of Rs. 50/- from the accused in order to oblige them and that he neither obliged them nor returned the money. This is on fact a very

disturbing feature. P.W. 2, a co-employee, deposed clearly that A-1 told to P.W. 1 that he has given Rs. 50/- to P.W. 1''s wife, as bribe, to which

P.W. 1 replied that the money was not given to him. The investigating officer also would admit that his investigation revealed that A-1 had given an

amount of Rs. 50/- to P.W. 1''s wife and that A-1 asked that amount to be refunded. Such being the state of affairs, one wonders whether the

investigating officer should have filed at all a report as he did. Obviously, a public servant deserves protection, since in the performance of his

duties, he is likely to cause disappointment to many and invite their wrath. That is why under sections 189 and 353 and various other sections of

the Indian Penal Code, a public servant is strongly protected and punishment for offences against him is made deterrent, But, a public servant to

deserve such a protection should behave himself in all respects as per the rules of discipline and the ethics of his function. If a public servant has

gone astray and indulged in malpractices, more especially by way of taking bribe, he would necessarily become subject to public criticism and

private accountability. Persons who did not receive the services for which they paid money would have the impression of having been cheated and

in their reaction they cannot be expected to consider the public servants as such. In fact, what appears then at the forefront is not the performance

of duty by the public servant, but the non-performance of some contract dehors the normal functions of the public servant. If that illegal contract

gives rise to any act of violence at any stage, such acts cannot constitute by any stretch of imagination acts contemplated and punished under

Sections 353 and 189, I.P.C. Therefore, I find it impossible to accept the conviction of the accused under sections 353 and 189, I.P.C.

In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the convictions and sentences are set aside.

Revision allowed.