Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kusum vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 August, 2024
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1 CRR-2510-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 2 nd 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
2 CRR-2510-2024
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
3 CRR-2510-2024
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 attracted as no action for
discharge of duty on the part of victim was proposed which was obstructed
by the accused. The fist limb is also not attracted here as there is no evidence
available on record which would suggest that victim was discharging any
duty as a public servant at the time of incident. It has been claimed by
victim-complainant Himanshu Pratap Singh (P.W.6) that at the time of
incident, he was in the chamber of Dr. Badri Singh and was discussing some
programme when the incident happened. Similarly, Dr. Badri Singh (P.W.1)
has claimed that Himanshu Pratap Singh was in his chamber to discuss the
management of hospital and the points of a national programme when this
4 CRR-2510-2024
incident took place. There is no document available on record which would
suggest that a meeting was scheduled or held on said agenda in the chamber
of Dr. Badri Singh. Therefore, prosecution has not successfully proved that
victim-complainant Himanshu Pratap Singh was discharging his official duty
at the time of incident. His presence in the chamber of Dr. Badri Singh
would not itself prove that he was present there to discharge some official
actions. Thus, it can't be assumed that the victim was assaulted in the
discharge of his duty or with an intent to prevent him from discharging his
duty as a public servant.
9. Now comes the question whether the victim was attacked in
consequence of anything done or attempted to be done in past in lawful
discharge of his duty. It is claimed by the prosecution that accused was
suspended from her post and to seek her suspension revoked, she was
exercising pressure and committed the crime. It is also claimed by the
prosecution that she was holding complainant Himanshu Pratap Singh liable
for her suspension but whether he was actually instrumental in her
suspension or not is a fact that has not been proved by any document. There
is also no order of suspension placed on record which would suggest that the
accused was suspended from her post by the victim. It has been admitted by
victim-complainant Himanshu Pratap Singh (P.W.6) in para 3 that he was
neither the officer of accused nor was having any supervisory authority over
her. The oral testimony of Himanshu Pratap Singh (P.W.6) does not reveal
that he was attacked by accused on account of her suspension order. Thus,
the third limb prescribed in Section 332 IPC is also not established even
from the testimony of victim-complainant Himanshu Pratap Singh (P.W.6).
5 CRR-2510-2024
10. On the basis of foregoing discussion, it can be inferred that none of the
limbs provided in Section 332 IPC, as have been discussed in earlier para, is
established in this case through evidence. It was observed by the courts
below that the evidence led on the point that victim was discharging his
official duty was not challenged by the defence. Admittedly, accused was not
posted in that hospital nor was she having any access to the details of official
duties that were supposed to be executed by the victim at the time of
incident. Admittedly, victim was not in his place of duty and he was sitting
in the chamber of Dr. Badri Singh, therefore, going by the place of incident
also, it cannot be assumed that victim was discharging his official duty. It
was a burden on the prosecution to prove that victim-complainant Himanshu
Pratap Singh and Dr. Badri Singh were discharging some official duty by
engaging in discussion on some official plans. This fact was exclusively
within the knowledge of the prosecution but it failed to discharge that
burden, therefore accused could not have been saddled with a reverse burden
on this point. The conviction of accused under Section 332 IPC is, therefore,
liable to be quashed.
11. It has been claimed that the accused caused hurt to Himanshu Pratap
Singh by hitting him with an umbrella and for this part of accusation, the
prosecution has again relied upon the testimony of Dr. Badri Singh (P.W.1)
and victim-complainant Himanshu Pratap Singh (P.W.6). The other two
eyewitnesses, namely Rajkumar Pandey (P.W.2) and Ashish Kumar Pandey
(P.W.3) have failed to support the prosecution story. Dr. Pankaj Singh
(P.W.4) has admitted the fact that he was not a witness to this incident.
Another witness Kalyani Singh (P.W.7) has though claimed that accused
6 CRR-2510-2024
caused hurt to Himanshu Pratap Singh by giving him a blow with her
umbrella but police statements of this witness reveal that she came to know
about the incident only on next working day. This reveals that she too was
not an eyewitness to this incident.
12. We have, therefore, to examine the statements of Dr. Badri Singh
(P.W.1) and Himanshu Pratap Singh (P.W.6) on the charge of causing hurt to
Himanshu Pratap Singh. Both these witnesses have claimed that accused
gave a blow with her umbrella on the hand of Himanshu Pratap Singh
causing him hurt. Admittedly, the doctor who medically examined Himanshu
Pratap Singh was not examined in the case but his MLC form has been
exhibited in evidence as Ex.P-5. To prove a simple hurt, testimony of a
medical officer is not required always. The cross-examination of Dr. Badri
Singh and Himanshu Pratap Singh (P.W.6) reveal that they both remained
stable and consistent on their statements, therefore this court finds no reason
to disbelieve their testimony on the fact that accused caused hurt to
Himanshu Pratap Singh by giving him blow with her umbrella on his hand.
Therefore, the charge of Section 323 IPC stands proved against the accused.
13. On the basis of foregoing discussion, the accused is convicted of the
offence of Section 323 IPC and her conviction under Section 332 IPC is set
aside. It was argued during the course of final hearing that if the court finds
the accused guilty of offence, it should sympathetically consider the sentence
already suffered by the accused. The record reveals that as an under trial, she
was in custody for three days and a sentence of imprisonment for almost
three months has already been undergone by the accused from the date of
conviction under the impugned order passed on 30.4.2024 till the date of
7 CRR-2510-2024
suspension of sentence order passed on 1.7.2024. Considering the nature of
offence, the accused is sentenced under the offence of Section 323 IPC for a
period already undergone by her. She is also sentenced to fine amount of
Rs.1,000/-. In case she has already deposited that amount, the same be
adjusted under the modified conviction and sentence and if not paid yet, she
be subjected to suffer additional simple imprisonment of ten days in default.
14. The criminal revision is accordingly decided and disposed of.
15. A copy of this order along with the records of the courts below be send
to the trial court for information and necessary compliance.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
ps
Date: 2024.08.03 10:58:28 +05'30'
