Skip to content


Manumiya Vs. State of Gujarat - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 218 of 1974
Judge
Reported inAIR1979SC1706; 1979CriLJ1384; (1979)4SCC717
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 333
AppellantManumiya
RespondentState of Gujarat
Excerpt:
.....observed that evidence proved the case against appellant beyond reasonable doubt - court reduced sentence from one year to six months and remit fine - appeal dismissed with modification. - indian evidence act, 1872 section 3: [dr.arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly,jj] appreciation of evidence held, the principle falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a rule of law but is only a rule of caution. principle has no application in india. section 3: appreciation of evidence-discrepancies held, court has to differentiate between normal and material discrepancies. while normal discrepancies do not corrode credibility of a partys case, material discrepancies do so. indian penal code, 1890 section 300: murder delay in lodging f.i.r. - immediate concern to give medical assistance to..........was that according to the prosecution the appellant had merely tried to enter the bus from the driver's cabin which was not occupied by the driver who was standing near the bus and it has not been proved that the driver in stopping the appellant was acting in discharge of his duties. in our opinion the contention is to be stated only to be rejected. it is not disputed that the appellant tried to trespass into the driver's cabin which was meant for the complainant driver. while driving the bus or even while standing at the bus stand the driver was discharging his duties and if he tried to prevent the appellant from committing trespass by entering into the driver's cabin he was undoubtedly acting in the due discharge of his duties as a driver of the bus belonging to the transport.....
Judgment:

S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.

1. In this appeal by special leave the appellant has been convicted under Section 333, I.P.C., and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, in default to suffer three months'' rigorous imprisonment. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court and have also heard counsel for the parties. Mr. Jethmalani in support of the appeal has argued a point of law before us. He submitted that on the facts recorded by the Sessions Judge, no case under Section 333 has been made out. His contention was that according to the prosecution the appellant had merely tried to enter the bus from the driver's cabin which was not occupied by the driver who was standing near the bus and it has not been proved that the driver in stopping the appellant was acting in discharge of his duties. In our opinion the contention is to be stated only to be rejected. It is not disputed that the appellant tried to trespass into the driver's cabin which was meant for the complainant driver. While driving the bus or even while standing at the bus stand the driver was discharging his duties and if he tried to prevent the appellant from committing trespass by entering into the driver's cabin he was undoubtedly acting in the due discharge of his duties as a driver of the Bus belonging to the Transport Department. If de-spite the attempt of the complainant to stop the appellant from entering the driver's cabin the appellant abused the complainant and gave him a kick which resulted in grievous injury, it cannot be said that Section 333 has no application. It was faintly suggested that this was not a case which ought to have been dismissed by the High Court in limine. Having regard to the clear findings given by the learned Sessions Judge and the nature of the evidence we feel that the High Court was fully justified in not entertaining the appeal. For these reasons, therefore, the contention of Mr. Jethmalani is overruled. Lastly Mr. Jethmalani submitted that a lenient view may be taken on the question of sentence and that the sentence of imprisonment should be set aside, We are, however, unable to agree with this contention fully because the appellant was not only a citizen but a Deputy Sarpanch of the village and as such a public servant and he should have known that he ought, not to have interfered with another public servant in the performance of his duties. This,, therefore, aggravates the offence committed by the appellant. However, in the circumstances, we feel that the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment rather errs on the side of severity. We, therefore, reduce the sentence from one year to six months and also remit the fine. With this modification the appeal is dismissed.


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