NAMDEO LAKMAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Reference by the Acting Sessions Judge of Poona with respect to the conviction of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323, Indian Penal Code. The ground on which the learned Judge recommends to us that the conviction and sentence should be quashed, is that the Magistrates recorded evidence at some length, but omitted to record any statement of their reasons for such conviction as required by Section 263, Cr.P.C. Then the letter of refer-once says that there was delay in lodging the complaint; that the excuse that the complainant could not make the complaint earlier was false; that she alleged that she was an in-door patient, whereas her in juries were slight, and she was treated as an out-door patient only; and that certain discrepancies in the evidence rendered the above defect more than a formal defect.

(2.) The dispute in this case was a family squabble. The complainant is the mother-in-law and accused No. 1 is her son-in-law. The remaining accused were relations of the son-in-law. The Magistrates heard the case, and took down a considerable body of evidence for the prosecution. The defence Pleader said he had no evidence to call on behalf of the defence. The order was: "Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15 each, or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for ten days. Section 323, Indian Penal Code. Benefit of doubt is given to accused Nos. 3 and 4, and they are, therefore, acquitted." In effect the Magistrates were chivalrous enough to give the benefit of the doubt to the two ladies accused Nos. 3 and 4, and to impose on the men accused Nos. 1 and 2 a small fine.

(3.) We have read the evidence, and there is, undoubtedly, ample evidence to justify the finding that the complainant, the mother-in-law, was attacked and injured by accused Nos. 1 and 2. The trouble arose apparently over an alleged right of way which the accused's party were trying to block up. We fully recognise the importance of the directions in Section 263, Cr.P.C., and that the Magistrates should strictly adhere to them. We also think that it was quite proper of the learned Sessions Judge to draw our attention in this particular case to the omission by the Magistrates to comply strictly with the directions in that section.