I.P.Singh - (1.) VISHWANATH complainant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of Sri M. C. Gupta, Munsif Magistrate Havali, Farrukhabad dated 8-3-1978 acquitting Suresh Singh accused of offences punishable under sections 323 and 504 I. P. O.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that the complainant Vishwanath has been looking after the fields of his Bhawaj Smt. Gayanwati who is the daughter-in law of his Bau. He had planted about 100 Sheesham and Asia Queen trees around his field. Suresh Singh accused had uprooted some of those trees. Accordingly Smt. Gayanwati had protested to him as a result of which he entertained grudpe against her and the complainant. On 16-9-1976 at about 8 A. M. Smt. Gayanwati was standing outside the door of her house. Suresh Singh accused arrived there and abused her saying that she had given much prominence to her brother-in-law (Bahut Charha Rakkha Hai). In the meanwhile the complainant Vishwanath had reached there. Seeing him the accused advanced to attack him. THE complainant entered the house. THE accused followed him inside the house and beat the complainant in the Angan of the house with lathi. THE incident was seen by Bahadur Singh and Badan Singh. THEy had actually intervened to save the complainant. THE report of the incident was lodged by Smt. Gayanwati at the police station but the police did not record the fact that marpit was done inside the house. Accordingly the complainant filed a complaint dated 5-10-1976 in the court. Vishwanth complainant was medically examined by Dr. S. C. Govil (PW 3), Medical Officer, District Hospital, Fatehgarh, on 17-9-1976 at 5.45 P. M. According to that injury report, the complainant had suffered one lacerated wound skin deep on his head and two abrasions on other part of the body. THEse abrasions were found covered with scabs. THE said injuries were simple and the lacerated wound was caused by hard and blunt weapon like lathi. THE abrasions were caused by friction. THE duration was one and a half day. This duration takes the marpit back to 16-9-1976 at about 5-45 A. M. THE said estimation of duration was approximate inasmuch as the word " about " has been used. It would fit in with the alleged hour of occurrence. The defence of the accused as taken in his statement under section 313 CrPC is of complete denial of the occurrence as alleged by the complainant. He gave out his own version. According to that, the complainant and his other companions had beaten him about which he had filed a report with the police and filed a complaint in the court. In this way a cross-case was set up by him. He in his defence examined two witnesses, namely, Bahadur Singh (DW 1) and Jagmohan Singh (DW 2). It may be mentioned here that this Bahadur Singh (DW 1) is the person who had earlier appeared as a witness for complainant during the course of statements recorded under section 202 CrPC. This fact is mentioned in the judgment of the court below. It would follow that this witness who was previously supporting the complainant's case has turned round and has come forward to support the case of the accused. This circumstance appeared to weigh with the learned court below to introduce a strong element of doubt in the complainant's version. According to the DWs the marpit had taken place between the parties in an open field of the accused. Vishwanath complainant was trying to plant trees in the field of the accused, the accused had taken objection that he should plant trees after getting the fields measured so that there may not be any encroachment and this had led to a marpit between the complainant and the accused. Badan Singh, PW 2, has admitted in his cross-examination that he is a co-accused with Vishwanath complainant in the cross-case filed by the accused. The learned court below has, therefore, rightly observed that both the complainant (PW 1) and Badan Singh (PW 2) are interested witnesses. There is none other who may be termed as independent witness to corroborate them. In the overall circumstances of the case and in the background of Bahadur Singh (DW 1) subsequently coming to the side of the accused the learned magistrate rightly acquitted the accused of both the chargss levelled against him,
(3.) HERE I may also point out that the charge framed against the accused under section 504 IPC was not happily or properly worded. That charge simply read that the accused having voluntarily insulted the sister-in-law of Vishwanath Singh by abusing her had committed an offence punishable under section 504 IPC. Section 504 IPC carries am important ingredient that the insult should be such which gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it very likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. Neither this ingredient was incorporated in the charge nor any evidence to that effect was led by the prosecution. The acquittal recorded by the learned court below cannot be regarded as based on any perverse view of the evidence on record. Accordingly there is no force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order of the court below are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.;