Skip to content


Mst. Budhia Vs. Chhotelal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal (by special leave) No. 84 of 1964
Judge
Reported in1966CriLJ583
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 367
AppellantMst. Budhia
RespondentChhotelal and ors.
Appellant Advocate R.P. Goyal, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Vishinlal, Adv. and; B.C. Chatterjee, Deputy Govt. Adv.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
- - i cannot do better than to quote this part to illustrate the kind of judgment which the learned magistrate has produced in this case: in the second place, he has entirely failed to give the reasons for the decision to which he came. i should like to point out for the guidance of the magistrate that a judgment like this serves no useful purpose whatever. with this submission i have not felt persuaded to agree if only to impress upon the magistracy that judgments of this character are no judgments at all in law and that this court views with strong disapproval the kind of judgment which has been produced in this case......and also produced the doctor anant narain joshi who had examined her injuries. although the learned magistrate has not taken the trouble of stating what the defence of the accused was, it apears from the record that one of the accused chhotelal came forward with a counter story which was to the effect that on the very day of the incident mst. somoti and her companions had given a beating to his wife and that he had filed a complaint of that incident on the following day thereof, and, therefore, a false case had been brought against him. the other accused completely denied to have had anything to do with the offences alleged against them. 3. this brings us to the judgment by which the learned magistrate acquitted the accused. the judgment consists of about 6 1/2 pages out of which.....
Judgment:

I.N. Modi, J.

1. This is an appeal by special leave under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of acquittal passed by the Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Bayana, dated the 23rd October, 1963, acquitting the four accused respondents of offences under Sections 323 and 504 I. P. C.

2. Having regard to the conclusion to which I have come as respects the quality of the judgment produced by the trial Magistrate, it is not necessary to state the facts out of which this appeal has arisen at any great length. Suffice it to say that according to the prosecution on the 19th April, 1960, at about 5 or 6 P. M. the complainant Mst. Budhia's daughter Mst. Somoti was working in her field which was jointly held by the complainant and the accused respondents Chhotelal and Harisingh. It appears that a fence was being erected around a part of the field which had been cultivated by the complainant. But the accused Harisingh forcibly removed it. Thereupon Mst, Somoti raised an outcry. The complainant hastened to the place wherefrom Mst. Somoti was crying. She saw that Harisingh was dismantling the fence. She protested but in vain. The accused hurled abuses at her and beat her up with lathis. She raised an alarm whereupon a number of persons came on the spot and saved her. On the 22nd April, 1960, she lodged a complaint in the court of the Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Bayana. Earlier, she had got herself medically examined by the doctor at Bayana on that very date that is the 22nd April, 1960. Apart from examining herself, the complainant produced Mst. Somoti, her daughter, and two other witnesses Bhajan and Ramchand who had witnessed the incident, and also produced the doctor Anant Narain Joshi who had examined her injuries. Although the learned Magistrate has not taken the trouble of stating what the defence of the accused was, it apears from the record that one of the accused Chhotelal came forward with a counter story which was to the effect that on the very day of the incident Mst. Somoti and her companions had given a beating to his wife and that he had filed a complaint of that incident on the following day thereof, and, therefore, a false case had been brought against him. The other accused completely denied to have had anything to do with the offences alleged against them.

3. This brings us to the judgment by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. The judgment consists of about 6 1/2 pages out of which the first two pages give the facts of the case and the next four give a summary of the evidence produced by the complainant. It is only a part of the remaining half page which contains the entire discussion of the evidence led by the parties. I cannot do better than to quote this part to illustrate the kind of judgment which the learned Magistrate has produced in this case:

geus cqDyk; Qjhdsu dh cgl lquh o bLrxkls dhrkbZn esa c;ku xckgku c c;ku eqyfteku gLc nQk 342 lh- vkj- ih- lh- c lQkbZ dsxokg ,p- lh- dsnkjukFk ds c;ku i


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