P. Chandra Reddi, J.
1. The complainant is the appellant herein. He filed a complaint alleging that the respondents caused him hurt and wrongfully confined him, offences punishable unde Sections 323 and 342, I. P. C. The case as set up by the prosecution witnesses was this. P. W. 1 returned from the Shandy to the house of his brother at Devarapalle at about 6 p.m. on 20-8-55. When he was talking with his brother, A-5, a sweeper in the Panchayat Office, came there and asked him whether he had abused the President of the Board, This was denied by the complainant.
After some time he started to go to the village. On the way, he stopped and spent some time in die house of the village-niunsif. When he left that house-and was on the outskirts of the village, A-1 to A-5 pursued him and asked him to stop. While running P. W. 1 fell down. Meanwhile, the culprits overtook him and A-1 gave a slap on the cheek and A-2 to A-5 beat him with sticks. The victim fell down in a field transplanted with paddy.
The five accused then tied his hands, took him to Devarapalle where he was produced before A-6. A-6 beat him with a cane and sent him to the rural dispensary. From there, the complainant was taken to the Panchayat Office where he was confined the whole night.
At about 1 p. m. the next day A-4, A-5 and the Village watchman took him to the police station. At the station, he complained to the Station Officer about the beating and wrongful confinement. He was sent to the doctor at Kotapadu who examined him and issued the medical certificate, Ex. P. 3. Six witnesses were examined for the prosecution of whom P. W. 6 is the doctor. P. W. 1 spoke to himself being beaten and wrongfully confined. P. Ws. 3 and 4 corroborate him with regard to beating.
2. The defence was this. When A-5 met the complainant at his brother's house the complainant who was in a drunken state abused him and attempted to stab him with a knife. Some people separated them. Then the complainant went away. A-5 and some others waited near the village munsif's house with a view to apprehend him and produce him before the Panchayat Board President. When the com-plainant saw them he started running. He was chasert y them with a view to catch him for the purpose mentioned above. The complainant fell down and when they tried to catch him he attempted to stab them. Thev all caught him and took him to A-6 who directed that the complainant should be taken to the doctor. After obtaining the medical certificate from the doctor to the effect that he was in a drunken state they wanted the village munsif to send him to the police station, but the latter declined to do so; therefore he was kent in the panchayat office as it was night and produced before the police station at Kodur the next day.
3. The trial court acquitted the accused under both the counts on these grounds. So far as the offence under Section 323 I. P. C. is concerned, P. W. 1 could not say as to which of the accused caused the injuries to him.
With regard to the offence under Section 342 his finding is that accused 1 to 3 were in the picture only up to the stage when P. W. 1 was brought to the house of A-6 and after that they faded out, and so far as A-4 is concerned there was no complaint that he had anything to do with the confinement of P. W. 1. As regards A-5 and A-6 who were responsible for the detention that night, the trial court took the view that they were justified in doing so by reason of Section 59 Cr. P. C.
4. In this appeal, Mr. Ramamurthy has canvassed both the findings. I may first dispose of the offence under Section 323 I. P, C. Although P. W. 1 has stated that he was beaten by A-1 to A-5 he could not say which of them caused injuries, In paragraph 8 of the judgment, the learned magistrate observes:
'What is indeed strange in this case is even P. W. 1 could not say which accused caused the injuries. In the absence of proof that it particular accused caused the injury or injuries the accused cannot be convicted. In this case there is nothing to show that any particular accused caused the injuries described in Er P 3.'
Mr. Ramamurthy urged that it is not necessary to establish that any particular accused person inflicted the injuries or caused hurt to P. W. 1 and that it is sufficient to show that they were present there. I cannot agree. In the absence of a charge under Section 147, I. P. C. it is only the persons who caused the injuries that can be punished for their individual acts. Hence it cannot be said that the trial court was wrong in acquitting the accused under Section 323 I. P. C.
5. Coming next to the charge under Section 342 I. P. C. it was pointed out by the magistrate that the evidence of P. Ws. 2 to 4 was not reliable for the reasons given by him and there was only the evidence of P. W. 1 to prove the offence. According to the trial court there was no reference in the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and A-1 to A-4 as those who took part in confining him wrongfully. The magistrate has pointed out that A-1 to A-4 had left the place after handing P. W. 1 to A-6. It is also his opinion that there is no definite evidence that A-4 had any part in it. It was only A-5 who detained him in the Panchayat Office as directed by A-6.
6. The question is whether there was justification for them to do so. Mr. Ramamurthy argued that they have not acted in good faith and cannot therefore invoke Section 81, I.P.C. and Section 59, Cr. P. C. did not afford any protection to those accused persons because it cannot be said that the complainant had committed any non-bailable or non-cognizable offence and they cannot be said to have acted in good faith.
He also contended that the provision of law would only govern a case where the act complained of was done only to prevent the commission of a crime, and when the actions of the person wrongfully confined show that the persons and property of others are endangered. In support of this argument, reliance is placed by him on Gopal Naidu v. Emperor, ILR 46 Mad 605: (AIR 1923 Mad 523 (2)) (A) (FB).
The proposition of law is unexceptional. Section 81 I. P. C, comes into play when the person confining another has a genuine and reasonable apprehension that to allow the other to remain at large will endanger the person and property of others. So, in order to attract Section 81 it should be shown that the act complained of was done in good faith in order to prevent or avoid harm to the person or property of others
7. The question for consideration, therefore. is whether the accused persons acted bona fide and had apprehension that the complainant might stab the other people being in a drunken state. The magistrate has pointed out that in the requisition sent fay them along with the complainant to the police station it was definitely staled that the complainant was in a drunken state and that he had attempted to stab accused-5.
It is submitted by Mr. Venkatadri Sastri for the respondents and it is not contradicted that Exs. D-9 and D-10 show that as the complainant was drunk it was feared that he might stab other people also. It follows that the finding of the Magistrate that A-5 and A-6 acted in good faith so as to attract Section 81 I. P. C. cannot be said to be wrong in any way.
8. In the result the appeal is dismissed.