[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Vaghari Amratbhai Karsanbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 10 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/63/2009 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 63 of 2009
==========================================================
VAGHARI AMRATBHAI KARSANBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 10/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Tejas P Satta for
the applicant, learned advocate submits that the order
of conviction passed by the trial Court and confirmed by
the First Appellate Court are perverse inasmuch as,
there is no bodily pain caused to the complainant in the
alleged offence. The act of "catching hold of the collor of
the complainant" would not fall within the provisions of
Section 319 and thus, attracting the provisions of
Section 321, namely, causing voluntarily hurt and
thereby, attracting Section 332, namely, voluntarily
causing hurt to deter public servant from discharging of
his duty. It is also argued that the loan was taken in the
year 1989 however, the recovery was made by the
present complainant in the year 1998. In the cross-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/63/2009 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
examination, it has also come on record that there is no
decree or any order for the recovery. Under the
circumstances, he has argued to allow the present
revision application.
2. Per contra, learned APP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma
submits that the present revision is against concurrent
finding of facts and therefore, this Court may not
exercised discretionary power under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. More particularly, when
no perversity is pointed out by the learned advocate
from the judgment and as thus, argued to reject the
present application.
3. Facts in nutshell of the present case is to the
effect that on 10.02.1998, the complainant went to the
house of present applicant for recovery of loan to the
tune of Rs. 7,500/- which was alleged due from the
original-accused present applicant. At that time, there
were hated arguments between the complainant and the
accused and it is alleged that the accused catched hold
of the collor of the complaint tried to bring him down on
the floor because of the intervention of the other
persons, who were present with the complainant, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/63/2009 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
complainant was saved and thus, a complaint came to
be filed against the accused before the Mahesana
Taluka Police Station punishable under Sections 332,
504 and 506(2) of the IPC bearing CR No.-I 49/1998.
Pursuant thereto, after investigation charge sheet came
to be filed before the concerned jurisdictional
Magistrate. It is also argued that the loan was taken in
the year 1989 however, the recovery was made by the
present complainant in the year 1998. In the cross-
examination, it has also come on record that there is no
decree or any order for the recovery. Vide an order dated
16.09.2008, the learned Trial Court sentenced the
present applicant for two years under Section 332 of
IPC and a fine to the tune of Rs.100 and in default
thereof, one month S.I., two years S.I under Section 504
of the IPC and a fine to the tune of Rs.100/- and in
default thereof one month S.I., and two years S.I. for the
offence under Section 502 of the IPC and a fine of
Rs.100/- and in default thereof one month S.I.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the
aforestated judgment and order of conviction the
present applicant preferred an appeal before the
Sessions Court, Mahesana being in Criminal Appeal No.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/63/2009 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
49/2008 which came to be partly allowed and the
conviction under Section 332 of the IPC for two years
S.I. and fine of Rs.100 which came to be confirmed
however, the accused was acquitted from the charges
punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC,and
fine of Rs.100/- which imposed by the learned Trial
Court (total amount of Rs. 200/-) came to be returned
to the accused vide judgment and order on 28.01.2009.
It is against this judgment and order dated 28.01.2009,
that the applicant is before this Court by way of
revision.
6. This Court has perused the impugned
judgment of the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court. Before adverting to the facts of the
case, it would be apt to refer under Sections 319,
321,332 of the IPC, which reads as under:
(a) Section 319- Hurt.
Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity
to any person is said to cause hurt.
(b) Section 321- Voluntarily causing hurt.
Whoever does any act with the intention of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/63/2009 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the
knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to
any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any
person, is said "voluntarily to cause hurt".
(c) Section 332- Voluntarily causing hurt to deter
public servant from his duty.
Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person
being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as
such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter
that person or any other public servant from
discharging his duty as such public servant or in
consequence of anything done or attempted to be done
by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as
such public servant, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
6. On bare perusal of the aforestated provisions
of law, it is clear that for attracting Section 332 of the
IPC, there must be voluntarily hurt by any person to a
public servant in the discharge of his duty. Section 321
defines "voluntarily causing hurt". The ingredients to
attract the said provisions are, any act with the
intention of causing hurt to any person, and secondly
with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/63/2009 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
hurt to any person, and thirdly, and thus causing hurt
to any person is said to have voluntarily caused hurt.
Hurt is defined in Section 319 which states that
whoever causes bodily pains of deceased or infirmity to
any person is said to cause hurt. On perusal of the
entire deposition of the complainant except for the fact
that while he had gone to the house of the accused for
recovery of the loan amount to the tune of Rs. 7,500/-.
The accused got agitated started using abusive
language, which according to the First Appellate Court
is not proved, nor the factum of threatening is also not
proved. However, the factum of catching hold of the
collor of the complainant is proved . This cannot be said
to be having caused hurt to the complainant in the
sense that the first Appellate Court has misread the
provisions of Section 319 of the IPC, by holding at Page
8 of the judgment that, as per Section 319 of the IPC, if
any injury is caused to the prestige or mind of the body
then it can be said that the injury has been taken
placed. This finding is totally dehors to the provision of
the law, when there is no iota of evidence on record by
the prosecution that by catching hold of the collor of
the complainant, he suffered bodily pain.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/63/2009 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
7. Similarly, the Trial Court by passing the
impugned order of conviction under Section 332 of the
IPC has not recorded any finding with regards to the
bodily injury to the accused, and under the
circumstances both the Courts have committed serious
palpable error on the face of the record by
misinterpreting the provisions of Section 319 of the IPC.
8. However, in the case of Jashanmal
Jhamatmal v. Brahmanand Sarupanand, 1943 SCC
OnLine Sind CC 42: AIR 1944 Sind 19: 1944 Cri LJ
247 at page 21, it is held that:
"8. Infirmity denotes an unsound or unhealthy
state of the body or mind and clearly a state of
temporary mental impairment or hysteria or terror
would constitute infirmity, in our opinion within the
meaning of that expression in Section 319 of the
IPC."
9. Considering the afrestated principles also and
adverting to the facts of the present case, which is not
even the case of the prosecution that by catching hold of
collor of the complainant by the accused, the
complainant was temporary mental impairment or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/63/2009 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
hysteria or terror would constitute infirmity, in such
circumstances also. The conviction by the Trial Court
under Section 332 of the IPC as confirmed by the
Appellate Court stands vitiated.
10. Under the circumstances, the present revision
application is allowed. The applicant is acquitted of the
charges under Section 332 of the IPC. The fine, if paid,
shall be refunded. R&P be sent back to the concerned
court forthwith. Bail bonds stand cancelled. The surety
stands discharged. The revision application is allowed to
the aforesaid extent.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MOHD SAIF ULLAH
