Syed Salman vs State

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned State Public Prosecutor.

The case of the prosecution is that on 12.08.2006 at about 9.00 p.m., Narasaiah, a Police Constable who was deputed by Basaveshwarnagar Police Station in III Stage, IV Block, to prevent chain snatching and other offences, was on his beat and when he went into the BDA Park, he had found one Nazia and the accused appellant herein sitting in a dark corner. Hence, he had warned them to leave the place immediately, for it was possible that other miscreants would cause trouble, at which, it is alleged that the appellant had come up to the complainant and held him by his collar and dragged him around and punched him in the face, causing grievous injuries and therefore, had obstructed the complainant, a public servant from discharging public duty. Having caused grievous hurt to Narasaiah, the appellant had committed an offence punishable under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''the IPC'', for brevity). It is in this regard that a complaint was lodged and further proceedings were taken. Charge-sheet having been filed, charges were framed against the accused and since he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the prosecution examined six witnesses. Thereafter, on hearing the parties, the court below framed the following point for consideration:

"1. Whether the prosecution proves that on 12.8.2006 at about 9.00 p.m. at IV Block, III Stage, Basaveswaranagar, Bangalore, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant who is a public servant and who was discharging his duty as a public servant and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 333 of IPC?

What order?"

The Trial Court answered the same partly in the affirmative and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant and Nazia were very intimate friends and this is evident from the fact that they were subsequently married. However, on the alleged date of the incident, the appellant was indeed along with Nazia and when the complainant had used foul language and asked them to go away from public park, the complainant had been enraged and there was exchange of words, but however, the allegation of assault is false and is concocted.

Though the Medical Practitioner PW-1 has issued a certificate on the basis that the complainant had a tooth ache and on an examination of his upper teeth on the right side, found that the first and second teeth were loose and having issued a Wound Certificate that the injury caused was grievous in nature, and merely because the witness had stated that such an injury would be caused to the teeth by a closed fist, did not lead to a conclusion that he had in fact been punched in the face. There is no evidence of the Medical Practitioner as to any bruises being caused on account of any such attack and therefore, except the allegation by the complainant and supported by a Medical Certificate which merely indicated that the teeth of the complainant were loose, it did not disclose that there was punch in the face. As a strong punch in the face would have certainly caused a bruise, it was necessary for such evidence to have been bought on record and the learned counsel would submit that this would be sufficient to indicate that the complaint was foisted on the appellant, which the court below has accepted without reservation and has imposed a stringent punishment of imprisonment of two years along with fine, which is wholly disproportionate to the alleged offence when it was the appellant who was roughed up and insulted in merely being present at the park along with his friend who is now his wife and hence, would submit that the judgment of the court below has not addressed the circumstances of the case in the right perspective and that therefore, the appellant be acquitted.

Given the nature of the case and the alleged injury suffered, it cannot be said that there was an injury and it was caused by the appellant merely because the complainant was found with loose teeth. However, the admitted presence of the accused at the place and time and that there was a possible exchange of words, cannot be dismissed. Therefore, there is some element of guilt on the part of the accused in having confronted the complainant who was discharging his duty. In the interest of the appellant and his lady friend, the complainant having asked them to leave the place, having resulted in the case would require the appellant to at least be imposed with a stiff fine in this regard.

Therefore, the appeal is allowed in part. The punishment of imprisonment is eschewed and set aside. The fine amount however stands enhanced to Rs. 2,000/- instead of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one month.

The counsel Shri Bharat Kumar Vindhyala appearing as amicus curiae in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, who has consistently remained absent, shall be paid a fee of Rs. 3,000/- by the State.