Skip to content


Bhim Singh Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1919All207; 49Ind.Cas.494
AppellantBhim Singh
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 353 - assault on police officer conducting search--offence--criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 94, 165--search of house of person suspected of theft, legality of. - - sections 94 and 165 are perfectly plain and their language is wide enough to cover the. it is true that he was suspected but nothing more, and he is clearly a person to whom an order could have been issued under section 94, and as in the circumstances it was highly improbable that he would produce the stolen articles, the search was justified under section 165 of the code......165 of the code. there remains the question of sentence. the assault on inspector mours was by no means a serious affair. apparently all that bhim singh attempted to do was to seize him by the throat and in so acting he left three scratches on inspector mours's face, two on the jaw and one by side of the nose, he then took to his heels and bolted. the offence, no doubt, had been committed, but at the same time it seems to me that a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment is quite uncalled for. the police' must of course be protected and the offence is a serious one. if the parties had been private persons the sentence would probably have been a small fine. the fact that the assault was made upon a police officer in the execution of his duty increases the gravity of the offence.....
Judgment:

Tudball, J.

1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code of having, caused simple hurt to a Police Officer in execution of his duty. He is a brother of one Sham Singh, who was suspected of having committed theft of some property from his master. Inspector Mours went to search his quarters, whereupon the applicant Bhim Singh assaulted him. The plea taken is that the search attempted to be made by Inspector Mours was not authorised by law under Section 165, read with: Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in that Sham Singh was an accused person. With this contention I, cannot possibly agree. Sections 94 and 165 are perfectly plain and their language is wide enough to cover the. case. In the first piece, at the moment of the attempted search Sham Singh was not an accused-person. It is true that he was suspected but nothing more, and he is clearly a person to whom an order could have been issued under Section 94, and as in the circumstances it was highly improbable that he would produce the stolen articles, the search was justified under Section 165 of the Code. There remains the question of sentence. The assault on Inspector Mours was by no means a serious affair. Apparently all that Bhim Singh attempted to do was to seize him by the throat and in so acting he left three scratches on Inspector Mours's face, two on the jaw and one by side of the nose, He then took to his heels and bolted. The offence, no doubt, had been committed, but at the same time it seems to me that a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment is quite uncalled for. The Police' must of course be protected and the offence is a serious one. If the parties had been private persons the sentence would probably have been a small fine. The fact that the assault was made upon a Police Officer in the execution of his duty increases the gravity of the offence and calls for a severer sentence than a fine, but a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment seems to me beyond all bounds. I, therefore, allow the application to this extent that I reduce the sentence from one of two years' rigorous imprisonment to one of six months rigorous imprisonment.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //