Shah, J. - (1.) The appellant Mrs. Menezes is the owner of a house in Bombay, and the wife of the first respondent. Yusuf Khan is a tenant of a part of the first floor in that house. On January 17, 1963, one Robert - a servant of the appellant, called the wife of the first respondent a thief and 'Halkat'. On the next day the first respondent slapped the face of Robert. This was followed by a heated exchange of abusive words between the first respondent and the appellant's husband. The first respondent was annoyed and threw at the appellant's husband a "file" of papers. The file did not hit the appellant's husband, but it hit the elbow of the appellant causing a "scratch". The appellant lodged information at the Bandra police station complaining that the first respondent had committed house trespass in order to the committing of an offence punishable with imprisonment, had thrown a shoe at her, had slapped the face of her servant Robert, and had also caused her a "bleeding incised wound on the forearm". The version of the appellant was a gross exaggeration of the incident. The Officer-in-charge of the police station was persuaded to enter upon an investigation on this information, which by charging the respondent with the offence of trespass was made to appear as if a cognizable offence was committed. The Sub-Inspector found that the appellant had suffered a mere scratch on her elbow. The appellant and Robert declined to go to a public hospital for examination or treatment, and were, it is claimed, examined by a private medical practitioner, who certified that the appellant had suffered a "bleeding incised wound, skin deep, size 1" in length on the right forearm", and that Robert had "a swelling about 11/2" in diameter, roundish, soft and tender", but no bruises.
(2.) The offence was petty, but was given undue importance. The case was transferred from the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Bandra, to the Court of the Presidency Magistrate VI Court, Mazagaon, Bombay, and was entrusted to a special prosecutor on behalf of the State. The Trial Magistrate held that the story that the first respondent had trespassed into the house of the appellant was false and the charge of trespass was made only with a view to persuade the police officer to investigate it as a cognizable offence. The story of the appellant that the first respondent had hurled a shoe at her was also disbelieved. The Trial Magistrate held that simple injuries were caused to Robert and to the appellant and for causing those injuries he convicted the first respondent of the offence under S. 323, I. P. C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 10 on each of the two counts. Against the order of conviction, a revisional application was preferred to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The appellant was no longer concerned with the proceedings in the High Court, but since there were some negotiations for compounding the offence, the appellant was impleaded as a party to the proceeding before the High Court. The High Court was of the view that the appellant had grossly exaggerated her story that the evidence of the medical practitioner who claimed to have examined the appellant and Robert and to have "certified the injuries" did "not inspire confidence", that the husband of the appellant had addressed provocative and insulting abuses, and that in a state of excitement the respondent hurled a "file of papers" at the appellant's husband which missed him and caused a "scratch" on the appellant's forearm. The injuries caused to the appellant and to Robert were in the view of the High Court "trivial" and the case was one in which the injury intended to be caused was so slight that a person of ordinary sense and temper would not complain of the harm caused thereby. The High Court accordingly set aside the conviction and acquitted the first respondent.
(3.) Before us it was urged that the High Court had no power to act under S. 95, I. P. C, since by the act of the respondent bodily hurt was intentionally caused. It was argued that S. 95 applies only in those cases where the act which causes harm is accidental and not deliberate, and that the expression "harm" in S. 95, I. P. C. includes financial loss, loss of reputation, mental worry or even apprehension of injury, but when physical injury is actually caused to the complainant S. 95 cannot be invoked. In our view there is no substance in these contentions. Section 95 provides: "Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm." It is true that the object of framing S. 95 was to exclude from the operation of the Penal Code those cases which from the imperfection of language may fall within the letter of the law, but are not within its spirit and are considered, and for the most part dealt with by the Courts, as innocent. It cannot, however, be said that harm caused by doing an act with intent to cause harm or with the knowledge that harm may be caused thereby, will not fall within the terms of S. 95. The argument is belied by the plain terms of S. 95. The section applies if the act causes harm or is intended to cause harm or is known to be likely to cause harm, provided the harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.;