The State of Rajasthan and Another vs Akshya Kumar

Kanta Bhatnagar, J.—Akshya Kumar respondent was tried for the charges Under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C. by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal. Vide judgment dated January 20, 1982 he was acquitted of the charges. The State of Rajasthan feeling dissatisfied by the judgment of acquittal preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 1982. Complainant Poonma also felt aggrieved by the judgment and filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 111 of 1982 which was connected with the appeal filed by the State. As the appeal and the revision petition arise out of the same judgment, I propose to dispose them of by one judgment.

The facts of the case leading to the trial of respondent were that on May 5, 1980 Poonma lodged the report at Police Station Bhinmal about respondent Akshya Kumar causing injuries to his wife smt. Gawari with an axe. Case was registered Under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C. and investigation proceeded.

The learned Magistrate held that the three witnesses viz. Rama (P.W. 4), Bagda Ram (P.W. 5) and Ganesha (P.W. 6) were near relatives of Smt. Gawari and their statements are not supported by the medical evidence and as such prosecution case cannot be said to be established beyond reasonable doubt. In view of that conclusion, the learned Magistrate passed the judgment of acquittal.

Notices were issued to the respondents. Mr. Suresh Kumbhat put in appearance initially on behalf on Akshya Kumar respondent but not at the time of final arguments. We heard Mr. Himta Ram Panwar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. N.M. Lodha, learned Counsel for Complainant Poonma.

It has been strenuously contended that the learned Magistrate has taken a superficial view of the statements of the witnesses and was not correct in discarding the testimony of witnesses simply because their version did not fit in with the medical evidence.

The quarrel is said to have taken place on the question of the respondent getting unloaded the truck of sand for his construction and Smt. Gawari objecting to it. Complainant Poonma was not present at the site and on being informed by his daughter Sukhi went to the site and thereafter to the Police Station. Injuries of Smt. Gawari were examined by Dr. Tej Singh (P.W. 1), Incharge, Medical Officer, Public Health Center, Bhinmal who noted following injuries on her person:

Incised like wound 2 cm. x 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm. on the middle of forehead placed obliquely transverse with bleeding.

Lacerated injury of 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm. on the left side of the bridge of nose.

The Doctor has noted that injury No. 1 was simple in nature and could have been sustained by some pointed object. The Doctor further stated that he has mentioned the word "incised like" in the report Ex. P/1 regarding this injury because where the skin is lightly stretched with the bone even a lacerated wound would look like an incised wound. According to the Doctor that injury could have been or not like a lacerated wound. He has also opined that injury could have been self inflicted.

The statement of the witnesses is that Akshya Kumar has thrown the axe towards Smt. Gawari which caused injury on her head and nose. The learned Magistrate after discussing the evidence of the witnesses and the Doctor has opined that in order to cause injury with axe, the assailant must have thrown the axe with force because as the prosecution case is that he was at a distance from Smt. Gawari. Throwing of axe in the circumstances, could not have caused the type of injuries noted by the Doctor. The prosecution case that about 50 or 100 persons had assembled when the quarrel regarding sand truck had taken place but only three near relatives viz Rama (P.W. 4), Bagda Ram (P.W. 5) and Ganesha (P.W. 6) have been examined. The Investigating Officer did not take care to produce any independent witness to substantiate its case. In such circumstances, looking to the nature and dimension of the injuries, the learned Magistrate, having considered the material on record cannot be said to have committed any error in acquitting the respondent. The Courts sitting in appeal should not ordinarily interfere in an order of acquittal because the trial Court has the advantage of the dameanour of the witnesses. Only when there are glaring infirmities in the judgment and the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is of a nature that no prudent man would form such an opinion, the interference in appeal is called for. So far as revisional jurisdiction is concerned, unless there are illegalities in the judgment or the procedure adopted or misreading of evidence, the revisional Court will not reappraise the evidence and interfere in the judgment of acquittal. In view of this discussion, the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate warrants no interference.

Consequently, the appeal filed by the State as well as the revision petition filed by the Complainant are dismissed.