STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. TANBA SADASHIO KUNBI
LAWS(BOM)-1962-12-7
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (FROM: NAGPUR)
Decided on December 14,1962

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Appellant
VERSUS
TANBA SADASHIO KUNBI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE Sessions Judge, Wardha, has recommended by this reference that the conviction of the non-applicant Tanba under Section 448 I. P. C. should be quashed. It is not possible to accept this reference.
(2.)THE facts leading to the prosecution and the reference are somewhat unusual and require to be noticed in detail. One Shri Anna Choudhari was a Head Master of a municipal school at village Mirapur in Wardha district, "the accused Tanba, is supposed to be a Vice Chairman of the School Committee. The accused has a nephew by name Bandu, who is studying in the school. On 19-3-62 during the recess time there was some kind of quarrel between the nephew of the accused on the one hand and two other boys, Gunwant and Punjab, on the other. The accused came into the school while the Head-Master was absent and he beat the two boys, Gunwant and Punjab. In the meantime, the Head-Master returned at about 2-15 P. M. The accused was in the school. The two boys were weeping. On inquiries they informed the Head-Master that they were beaten by the accused Tanba. On this the Head-Master reprimanded the accused that as a respectable person he should not have trespassed in the school and beaten the boys. The accused was incensed at this, and he started abusing the Head-Master and tried to catch. hold of his shirt and was about to use physical force. The Head-Master pushed back the accused and the accused went away abusing. He also threatened the Head-Master physical harm as soon as he came out' of the school. The complainant Shri Choudhari immediately made a report in the Police Station and a copy of the report was sent to the Janapad authorities. The Police Sub-Inspector made inquiries, and he prosecuted the accused Tanba under Sections. 448 and 506 I. P. C. At the trial the Head-Master and the boys concerned were examined. It was obvious that the boy Punjab had been won over and had to be declared hostile, but he supported substantially a part of the prosecution case. Similarly, another witness by name Shriram was also won over and had to be declared hostile. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. He did not admit that he went into the school or had anything to do with the beating of the two boys. His case was that all along he was at home and that it was his sister-in-law who wanted to chastise the boys. He alleged that the false complaint was made against him because of Some village dispute.
(3.)THE learned trying Magistrate accepted the prosecution case, convicted the accused on each count and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 257.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.