State v. Dhanpat — 1965 DIGILAW 161 (RAJ)

CHHANGANI, J.—This is an appeal by the State from the order of First Class Magistrate, Bhadra dated 14th August, 1963, acquitting the respondents of offences under sec. 325 and 323, Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts leading to this appeal may be briefly stated as follows:— The respondent Richhpal and injured Hari Singh P. W. 3 were students of the village School in village Ramgarh. The accused—respondent Dhanpat is the father of the accused-respondent Richpal. On 30th April, 1962 Hari Singh P. W. 3 and the accused-respondent Richhpal were going to school at about 9 A.M. Hari Singh drew a picture of a man on his slate. Richhpal questioned Hari Singh as to whose picture he had prepared. Hari Singh replied that he had prepared the picture of a person. Richhpal thereupon told him that it was the picture of his dead father. Richhpal having said so at-once began to run away. Hari Singh tried to chase him. Richhpal collided with one boy Prithvi Raj in consequence of which he lost one of his teeth. This incident annoyed Richhpals father and the members of his family. Consequently on 1st of May, 1962 when Hari Singh was returning from the jungle after easing himself the two accused respondents assaulted him. Respondent Dhanpat threw him down and sat on his chest. The respondent Richhpal held the injured Hari Singh by hands. Dhanpat then gave a blow with a weight measuring one Seer upon the face of Hari Singh and thus broke the teeth of Hari Singh. P. W./3 Dhanraj, P. W. 6 Hansraj and P. W. 7 Juharmal arrived on the spot and rescued the injured Hari Singh and Hari Singh was brought to his house. Hari Singhs father was not at his house and was away at his field. His younger brother was sent to call Hari Singhs father Puran P. W. 1. It appears that Prem Chand P. W. 8 Head Constable—incharge of Police Out Post, Felana, happened to arrive in the village and Puran approached Prem Chand P. W. 8 and informed him of the offences having been committed against his son Hari Singh. Prem Chand recorded the statement of Puran and forwarded it to the Police station, Nohar with a Constable Mukarabkhan with a request to register a case against the accused respondents. In the meanwhile he himself commenced investigation. Prem Chand recorded the statement of Puran and forwarded it to the Police station, Nohar with a Constable Mukarabkhan with a request to register a case against the accused respondents. In the meanwhile he himself commenced investigation. Mukarab Khan along with the injured Hari Singh arrived at the Police station by the morning train. The Station House Officer, Nohar registered a case and made an order handing over the investigation to Prem Chand. Injured Hari Singh was initially treated by Satyanand P. W. 4 at the village. Later on, he was sent to the Government dispensary Nohar. Dr. S. N. Verma P.W. 9 examined him and noticed the fracture of the various teeth. He found grievous injuries on the person of the injured. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet against both the respondents for offences under sec. 325 and 323 Indian Penal Code in the court of First Class Magistrate, Bhadra. 3. The prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its case. Out of these nine witnesses, Hari Singh P.W. 3 is the injured, Dhanraj P.W. 5, Hansraj P. W. 6 and Juharmal P.W. 7 are the eye witnesses; P. W. 1 Puran is the first informant. Satyanand P.W. 4 is the Vaidhya who initially treated Hari Singh and P.W. 9 Dr. S.N. Verma is the medical officer who examined the injured Hari Singh and noticed injuries on his person and P. W. 8 Prem Chand is the investigating Officer. 4. The accused did not plead guilty and examined three witnesses, Gopal D.W. 1, Roshan Khan D.W. 2 and Rajaram D.W. 3 in their defence. 5. The Magistrate after discussing the evidence led in the case acquitted the two respondents. The State has filed the present appeal challenging the order of the acquittal. 6. It will be convenient at the out set to briefly analyse the findings of the Magistrate. The Magistrate in the first instance stated the conclusion observing that in his opinion the offences under sec. 320 read with sec. 34, Indian Penal Code, were not made out beyond reasonable doubt against the accused respondents. He then proceeded to state reasons for his above conclusion. In the first instance, he undertook what I am inclined to call "examination of the general features of the case". 7. 320 read with sec. 34, Indian Penal Code, were not made out beyond reasonable doubt against the accused respondents. He then proceeded to state reasons for his above conclusion. In the first instance, he undertook what I am inclined to call "examination of the general features of the case". 7. Firstly, he took up the question of delay in lodging and the recording of the first information and discussed the matter under two heads firstly, delay on the part of Puran in reporting the matter to Prem Chand at 7 Oclock in the evening and consequently, the delay on the part of Prem Chand to convey the information to the Police Station, Nohar for proper recording of the first information report. Discussing the first head, the Magistrate observed that Puran stated that he could not leave for the Police Station by the 12 Oclock train inasmuch as some of the relations of the accused had started negotiations for a compromise. Observing further that the complainant did not name any such relation, he discarded the explanation of the complainant. He further, observed that there was no reason why after 12 Oclock the complainant did not leave on foot for the police station and waited till 7 Oclock when the Head Constable arrived in the village. These circumstances, observed the Magistrate, makes the entire case doubtful. Discussing; the second head, the Magistrate considered the conduct of the Head Constable Prem Chand in omitting to send the constable on foot in the night as highly objectionable and did not find any good reason for the delay. Discussing the matter under these two broad heads, he eventually recorded a conclusion that the delay was highly fatal to the prosecution case and the prosecution had no explanation for the same. 8. The Magistrate then discussed the question of the competence of Prem Chand to hold an investigation. After referring to sec. 156A, Criminal P.C. he held that Prem Chand was not competent to initiate investigation. That he had completed almost the entire investigation before the receipt of the direction of the Station House Officer, Nohar, authorising him to carry on investigation. The Magistrates eventual conclusion in this behalf is that the entire investigation was illegal and void and that no proceedings could have been taken against the accused-respondents under sec. 251-A, criminal P. C. on the basis of such an unauthorised investigation. 1 9. The Magistrates eventual conclusion in this behalf is that the entire investigation was illegal and void and that no proceedings could have been taken against the accused-respondents under sec. 251-A, criminal P. C. on the basis of such an unauthorised investigation. 1 9. Next, the Magistrate observed that the so called investigation by Prem Chand was altogether false and suspicious and he relied upon the statements of the prosecution witnesses in support of this observation. He in this connection first took up the consideration of Ex. 5, memo prepared by the Head Constable Prem Chand showing the recovery of broken pieces of teeth alleged to have been produced before him by Puran. Referring to the contrary statements of Purun, Hari Singh and Dhanraj which were at variance with Ex. P. 5, he concluded that Ex. 5 was a forged document. He went to the extent of observing that no accused could be convicted on the basis of investigation conducted by such an investigating officer. He went further and added that persons like Prem Chand cause obstruction in the administration of justice instead of rendering any aid in the administration of justice. The Magistrate having held Ex. P. 5 forged on the basis of these statements proceeded in the next breath to hold that the recovery of the teeth from the spot could not be held established. He expressed the opinion that the witnesses made statements to that effect mechanically simply because teeth were broken on the spot and some pieces of teeth was produced in court. He then posed the question whether the teeth were broken on the spot and whether any portion of the teeth fell at the place of the occurrence. Referring to the statement of Satyanand P. W. 4 and observing that only two teeth were fractured while three pieces of the teeth were recovered, he appears to decide that no tooth was broken at the time of the occur-rence and fell on the spot. The Magistrate also referred to the statements of the witnesses as to the number of teeth broken. Referring first to the statement of Satyanand PW 4 who records that two teeth had been broken and then referring to the recital in the first information report that four teeth had been broken and the rest were loose, he ridiculed Prem Chand for the recital in the first information report. Referring first to the statement of Satyanand PW 4 who records that two teeth had been broken and then referring to the recital in the first information report that four teeth had been broken and the rest were loose, he ridiculed Prem Chand for the recital in the first information report. He also referred to the statements of other witnesses as to the number of teeth broken and concluded that the recital in the first information report about the teeth was altogether false and destroyed the value of the entire first information report. The Magistrate then referred to the statement of Satyanand PW 4 that he was called by me next day and the statement of PW 6 Hansraj to the effect that he was examined two days after the incident and then referring to the police diary whether these witnesses statements are shown as having been recorded on the 1st, he concluded that the investigation was improper, false and bogus. The Magistrate then refers to the statement of Hari Singh PW 3 that Prem Chand brought the teeth next day during the period between morning and the noon. He infers that the investigation showing that the injured was produced in the Hospital at 10 Oclock in the morning and was medically examined is bogus. He then sums up the position as follows:— "An illegal and false investigation weakness the prosecution case completely and creates serious doubt that a false case has been bolstered up against them." He then considered the evidence of Dr. S.N. Verma PW/9 and recorded a conclusion that the medical evidence and the injury report were wholly unreliable. 10. After the discussion of the general features of the case, the Magistrate undertook the examination of the eye witnesses. Discussing the evidence, he discarded the evidence of PW/3 Hari Singh and Dhanraj PW/5 with a mere observation that Hari Singh was the injured and Dhanraj PW/5 was his relation. He ofcourse discussed in some manner the evidence of Hansraj PW/6 and Juharmal PW/7 and rejected the evidence treating Hansraj as a chance witness and Juharmal as having been declared hostile by the prosecution. On the basis of findings summarised above, the Magistrate recorded an order of acquittal. 11. The learned Deputy Government Advocate very seriously criticised the conclusions of the Magistrate with regard to the general features of the case. On the basis of findings summarised above, the Magistrate recorded an order of acquittal. 11. The learned Deputy Government Advocate very seriously criticised the conclusions of the Magistrate with regard to the general features of the case. He also contended that the discussion of the prosecution evidence was not satisfactory and the prosecution evidence was rejected on wholly insufficient and inadequate grounds. The learned Deputy Government Advocate took serious objections to the observations made by the Magistrate against the investigating officer and the Doctor S. N. Verma PW/9. 12. Mr. Lodha appearing for the respondents supported the judgment of the trial Magistrate. He contended that even though some of the conclusions of the Magistrate as regards the general features were worded in exaggerated language but on a cumulative consideration of the evidence as a whole and the facts and the circumstances of the case, the order of acquittal does not call for an interference. He also in this connection relied upon the principles laid down with regard to the dealing of appeals against acquittal. 13. Now, so far as the principles dealing with the appeal against acquittal are concerned, they have been settled by a series of a decisions of Supreme Court which have now become quite familiar. The principles emphasise the need of (i) a cautious approach by the appellate court in view of the initial presumption of innocence gaining strength from the order of acquittal and the need of slowness in interfering with the order of acquittal. All the same, the jurisdiction of the appellate court to review the entire evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion of facts stands clearly recognised. In dealing with this appeal, I will be guided by the principles referred to above. 14. I now propose to examine the conclusions of the Magistrate on the general features of the case. 15. Taking up the question of delay first, it will be proper to recall the material facts. The incident took place at about 6 A.M. in the morning of 1st May, 1962. The injured was a young boy below 13 years. His father was not at the village and he had to be called from the field. 15. Taking up the question of delay first, it will be proper to recall the material facts. The incident took place at about 6 A.M. in the morning of 1st May, 1962. The injured was a young boy below 13 years. His father was not at the village and he had to be called from the field. The complainant could have left for the Police Station by the train which was available at 12 noon, but he did not leave for the Police Station as the relations of the accused had started negotiations for the compromise. The Magistrate had not accepted the explanation given by the complainant on the ground that he did not name any particular relation who started the negotiations for compromise. I regret, I am unable to agree with the view taken by the Magistrate. In his statement recorded as first information report, he had given this explanation for the delay. Even as a witness he made a statement that as some persons intervened for a compromise he could not leave for the police station. There has been no pointed cross-examination to discredit the witnesss statements in the first information report or in court. The Magistrate in these circumstances was hardly justified in ignoring the explanation given by the informant Puran. The Magistrate has not expressly indicated how the prosecution availed of this delay for either bolstering up a false case or twisting facts to sustain the prosecution of the accused. Considering that Puran, the father of the boy, was not at the village and some time was naturally taken to obtain first-aid for the boy and the rustic simplicity of the complainant and Purans explanation that the accuseds relations started negotiations, it will be hardly proper and desirable to blame Puran for not leaving the village for the Police Station by the 12 Oclock train. Secondly, the Magistrate was also hardly justified in finding fault with the prosecution for an omission to send some persons on foot to the Police Station, Nohar. It was the month of May and in this part of Rajasthan and in this month it is not customary to travel in the noon hours. Besides, I cannot accept as a proposition of law that delay in lodging the first information report must necessarily be fatal to the prosecution case. It was the month of May and in this part of Rajasthan and in this month it is not customary to travel in the noon hours. Besides, I cannot accept as a proposition of law that delay in lodging the first information report must necessarily be fatal to the prosecution case. Delay can only be a factor which has to be taken into consideration while appreciating the prosecution evidence but I am quite unable to hold that the delay must necessarily be fatal to the prosecution case and that the case of the prosecution should be doubted on this ground. 16. Proceeding further, I think that the Magistrate adopted a wholly unjustified and unnecessarily strict attitude in finding fault with the Head Constable Premchand for omission to send the constable in the night to the police station for recording the information report. Puran approached him at about 7 Oclock in the evening. He recorded his statement. The Police Station was at a distance of twelve miles from the village although according to the complainants counsel it was even more than twelve miles distant. The constable along with the injured left in the early morning by the morning train. There could be no point to gain in directing the constable to leave the village in the night and to reach the Police Station at about mid-night. By availing of the train, he could safely arrive at the Police Station on the next day in time. It is also significant that Premchand was not questioned as to why he did not think it proper to send the constable in the night on foot. In my opinion, the Magistrate was not at all fair in condemning the investigating officer on this aspect of the case. In this view of the matter, I entirely disagree with the conclusion of the Magistrate that the delay should be taken as fatal to the prosecution case. There has been no inordinate and unjustifiable delay so as to affect the merits of the case. 17. The conclusion of the Magistrate that the investigation by Head Constable Premchand was wholly unauthorised and cannot be the basis of proceedings against the accused-respondent under sec. 251-A, Criminal P.C. is also erroneous in law. The Magistrate relied upon sec. 156 sub-sec. There has been no inordinate and unjustifiable delay so as to affect the merits of the case. 17. The conclusion of the Magistrate that the investigation by Head Constable Premchand was wholly unauthorised and cannot be the basis of proceedings against the accused-respondent under sec. 251-A, Criminal P.C. is also erroneous in law. The Magistrate relied upon sec. 156 sub-sec. (1) of the Criminal P.C. which reads as follows— "An officer-in-charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court, having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provision of Chapter XV relating to the place of inquiry or trial." and he concluded that no police officer other than an officer incharge of the Police Station was competent to conduct investigation. In my judgment he was wrong in considering sec.156 sub-sec. (i) in isolation. It will be useful in this connection to refer to a few statutory provisions for arriving at a correct conclusion. Sec. 157, Criminal P.C. empowers a police officer incharge of the Police Station to depute a subordinate officer to investigate the case. Under sec. 168, Criminal P.C. the subordinate officers conducting investigation are required to report the result of such investigation to the officer incharge of the Police Station who eventually submits the final report. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 156 clearly provides that no proceedings of a police officer in any such case shall, at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. Under the scheme disclosed by these provisions it is reasonable to infer that irregularities in the conduct of investigation are not intended to vitiate the trial before the courts. The Magistrates are expected to decide cases on the evidence produced before them and the fact that the evidence was initially disclosed to a particular investigation officer cannot be of material importance. In support of this conclusion, I may refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court in H.N. Rishbud vs. State of Delhi (1). The Magistrates are expected to decide cases on the evidence produced before them and the fact that the evidence was initially disclosed to a particular investigation officer cannot be of material importance. In support of this conclusion, I may refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court in H.N. Rishbud vs. State of Delhi (1). The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act providing that investigation shall not be conducted by police officers below a specified rank and held that the provisions are mandatory and not directory and that the investigation conducted in violation thereof bears the stamp of illegality. In spite of this conclusion and even though section 156, sub-sec. (2) could not be invoked, the Supreme Court further held that if cognizance is in fact taken, on a police report, vitiated by the breach of the mandatory provision, the result of the trial which follows it cannot be set aside unless the illegality in the investigation can be shown to have brought about miscarriage of justice. In another case, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi (2) also the Supreme Court observed that conviction cannot be set aside on the ground of some irregularity or illegality in the matter of investigation : there must be a sufficient nexus, either established or probabilized, between the conviction and the irregularity in the investigation. 18. In the present case, Premchand was incharge of the Police Outpost, Fefana. He recorded the first information report and forwarded it to the Police Station, Nohar, and in the meanwhile, he commenced investigation. Eventually, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Nohar also authorised him to carry on investigation. No question was put to Premchand as to how he started investigation, and whether he was authorised to conduct investigation. Nothing was also brought out in cross examination as to how the investigation by Premchand caused prejudice to the accused-respondents. The Magistrate did not at all display a correct attitude in emphasising the alleged want of competence on the part of Prem Chand to hold investigation and to approach the case with some kind of bias on this score. 19. Nothing was also brought out in cross examination as to how the investigation by Premchand caused prejudice to the accused-respondents. The Magistrate did not at all display a correct attitude in emphasising the alleged want of competence on the part of Prem Chand to hold investigation and to approach the case with some kind of bias on this score. 19. Now, scrutinising the conclusion of the Magistrate that "an illegal and false investigation weakens the prosecution case completely and create serious doubt that a false case has been bolstered up against them", I first take up his finding with regard to Ex. P-5. In holding that Ex. P-5 was forged, the Magistrate relied upon the statements of Puran PW/1, Hari Singh PVV/3 and Dhanraj PW/5 which statements are in variance with the contents of Ex. P-5. It may be mentioned at once that Hari Singh and Puran state that Prem Chand Munshi found the broken pieces of the teeth on the next day at the time when he recovered the blood stained earth. Admittedly, both these persons were not present when Prem Chand inspected the site and seized the blood stained earth. It appears that both Hari Singh and Puran had left the village by the railway train for Police Station and for the Hospital. Their statements are hearsay and inferential. The probability of their statements being incorrect on account of lapse of memory cannot be underestimated. It is also significant that Ex. P-5 bears the signatures of Puran and this certainly points out towards the above probability. There could be also no point for the Head Constable to prepare a forged recovery memo like Ex. P-5. Dhanraj PW/5s statement also cannot be implicitly accepted. It is also curious that the Magistrate immediately after holding Ex. P-5 forged on the basis of these statements examined these statements and held them unreliable. In these circumstances, I cannot but hold that the conclusion of the Magistrate holding Ex. P-5 as forged is wholly untenable. 20. There are also no sufficient materials and adequate justification for the Magistrates ridiculing and condemning Prem Chand for recording in the first information report that the upper central four teeth have been broken and the rest are loose. The Magistrate entertained doubts as to the number of teeth broken and referred to the statement of Satyanand PW/4 and Dr. 20. There are also no sufficient materials and adequate justification for the Magistrates ridiculing and condemning Prem Chand for recording in the first information report that the upper central four teeth have been broken and the rest are loose. The Magistrate entertained doubts as to the number of teeth broken and referred to the statement of Satyanand PW/4 and Dr. S.N. Verma PW/9 and other witnesses and inferred from them that only two teeth had been broken. Now, Satyapal stated in examination in chief that the two upper teeth were broken on the upper side and were bent inward. He further added that no other tooth was broken but the two upper teeth were loose. Dr. S.N. Verma in his statement described the injury as follows:— "Fracture of the upper central and right lateral incisor (upper central and lateral incisor loose)." Broken pieces of teeth were sent under sepatrate cover to police." In answer to court question, he stated that he did not remember that the two central teeth which had been fractured had been dislocated in the roots or not. The other witnesses statements were not accepted on the basis of these two statements. 21. The above statements lack precision and do not eliminate the probability of the four teeth having been affected. The Magistrate was not justified in categorically assuming that only two teeth were affected and Prem Chand deliberately made a false observation in the first information report. He did not appreciate that Prem Chand was not an expert and that he was guided by Hari Singhs description of the injuries which could not have been precise. It is not unlikely that Hari Singh must have had some vague and general sensations. Nothing has been brought out in cross examination of Prem Chand that he had any ulterior motive in making false mention of facts in the first information report. He sent the injured to the Hospital and was not expected to deliberately record wrong facts. 22. On the basis of the discrepancies in the police diaries showing that the statements of Satyanand PW/4 and Hansraj PW/6 having been recorded on 1st May, 1962 and that the statements of Satyanand and Hansraj that they were balled and examined on other date, the Magistrate was not justified in concluding that investigation was false, improper and bogus. 22. On the basis of the discrepancies in the police diaries showing that the statements of Satyanand PW/4 and Hansraj PW/6 having been recorded on 1st May, 1962 and that the statements of Satyanand and Hansraj that they were balled and examined on other date, the Magistrate was not justified in concluding that investigation was false, improper and bogus. The Magistrate ought not to have given unnecessary importance to oral statements as also to the discrepancy as to the date when the winesses were interrogated. 23. Proceeding further, I find a clear and palpable error in the conclusion of the Magistrate that the investigation showing that the injured was produced in the hospital at 10 Oclock in the morning of 1st May, 1962 and was medically examined is bogus. Prem Chand PW/8 says that he sent the injured with the constable by the morning train. Hari Singh PW/3 also states that his father took him to hospital at Nohar next day in the morning. The injury report and Dr. S. N. Vermas statement also support this version. The learned Magistrate ignored all this evidence and emphasised the statement of Hari Singh that Premchand recovered the broken pieces of teeth sometime between the morning and noon. Hari Singh did not state that the broken pieces of teeth were recovered in his presence at the village. On a proper appreciation of the evidence, I cannot but hold that the conclusion of the Magistrate is extravagant and erroneous. The various intermediate conclusions being untenable the final conclusion "an illegal and false investigation weakens the prosecution case completely and creates serious doubt that a false case has been bolstered up against them" is wholly untenable and unsustainable. 24. The conclusion of the Magistrate also with regard to the evidence of Dr. S. N. Verma is open to serious criticism. The Magistrate has referred to the injury report in which the Doctor noticed two injuries on the person of the injured. Referring to the second injury, namely, 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on inner side of the lower lip, the Magistrate has recorded a conclusion that the Doctor was not correct in noticing this injury. In this connection he relies upon the statements of Prem Chand PW/8 and Satyanand PW/4 who noticed no such injury. Referring to the second injury, namely, 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on inner side of the lower lip, the Magistrate has recorded a conclusion that the Doctor was not correct in noticing this injury. In this connection he relies upon the statements of Prem Chand PW/8 and Satyanand PW/4 who noticed no such injury. Satyanand as appears from his statement gave the first aid to the injured and he was not interested in noticing the injuries of the injured in an exhaustive manner. Similarly, Prem Chand also was not expected to be an expert to notice these injuries. Besides, I find no reason why the Doctor would introduce in a false manner such a minor injury in addition to the grievous injury consisting of the fracture of the bone. The Magistrate, in my opinion, is wholly wrong in observing that the Doctor was responsible for preparing a false injury report and giving false evidence. It is also significant that nothing was brought in cross examination of the Doctor to discredit his statement. 25. The above discussion of the conclusions of the Magistrate on the general features of the case clearly indicates that the Magistrate did not make a judicial and balanced approach to the case. He approached the case with some set formulas as to the effect of delay and as to the effect of irregular investigation and recorded exaggerated and extremely worded conclusion, and approached the case with initial mistrust, and this approach has vitiated his decision. The administration of justice is a very responsible and sacred task and should not be attended to in a light hearted manner. The Magistrates should avoid what is sometimes called the pleaders craft of approaching the case as if an exercise in mathematics for the failure in which the poor litigants must suffer. While they are expected to consider all relevant factors their chief desire should be to penetrate the core of the problem. The Magistrate should not make fetish of ratio citation but should take aid from intuition, experience and common sense, and should be guided by a sense of justice which can be acquired only by reason tested with experience and experience developed with reason. In considering the principle of benefit of doubt to the accused also the Magistrate should have a proper appreciation of the principle. In considering the principle of benefit of doubt to the accused also the Magistrate should have a proper appreciation of the principle. It has to be borne in mind that the prosecution usually relies upon a number of facts although the Chief and primary fact is as to the guilt of the accused. Ignoring cases where reasonable doubt may arise with regard to the whole case there may be cases where reasonable doubt may arise with regard to any one or more of the facts. The proper course in such cases is Only to treat those particular facts against the prosecution and to consider all facts for or against the prosecution and then arrive at a correct conclusion on the totality of the facts, and the circumstances of the case should nor permit doubts about a few facts to warrant a verdict of not guilty. 26. In the present case, the Magistrate has completely disregarded the above principles. He unnecessarily emphasised the delay in lodging the first information report and treated the delay as fatal to the prosecution. He also went to the extent of holding that irregular investigation made the entire case doubtful. Without properly weighing the evidence he recorded conclusions to the effect that investigating officer prepared a forged recovery memo Ex. P-5 and that the Doctor made a false injury report and gave false evidence. I am entirely unable to agree with the conclusions of the Magistrate on the general features of the case. 27. Now, taking up the evidence of the eye-witnesses, the Magistrate rejected the evidence of injured Harisingh PW/3 and Dhanraj PW/5 with mere observation that Harisingh is the injured and Dhanraj is his relation. Apparently, this manner of appreciation of evidence cannot be treated satisfactory. The counsel for the respondents, however, pointed out that although while discussing evidence the Magistrate only made the above statement but he was guided in the decision by the various defects in the prosecution case and the defects in the evidence of these witnesses noticed in connection with his discussion on the general features of the case. I do not agree with him. The general discussion of the case is not satisfactory as indicated above and the Magistrate had no justification for rejecting their evidence in a summary manner. I do not agree with him. The general discussion of the case is not satisfactory as indicated above and the Magistrate had no justification for rejecting their evidence in a summary manner. The evidence of the injured and one eye witness having been thus discredited without proper discussion and appraisement the finding of the Magistrate cannot be treated as binding in this appeal against acquittal. Without referring to the evidence of the other witnesses at this stage, I have thought it proper to appraise the evidence myself in this appeal and to arrive at a proper conclusion. 28. Before referring to the evidence, it has to be mentioned that there is no doubt whatsoever that Harisingh did lose some of his teeth. The Magistrate states in the judgment to have personally examined the injured in court. The boy was also produced before me. Evidently, some teeth of Harisingh were missing. The Magistrate made no proper note of his observation in his judgment and merely recorded generally and vaguely that four teeth were not missing. He should have recorded a clear observation whether four or any number of teeth were missing or not. From the evidence of Satyanand PW/4 and Dr. S. N. Verma PW/9 appreciated in the light of examination of the boy in Court it is clear that Harising did suffer from an injury consisting of the fracture of the teeth. The evidence has to be appreciated in the background of this important fact that Harisingh had lost some of his teeth. 29. Now the first and the main witness in the case is Harisingh PW/3 the injured. He stated that on the date previous to the date of the incident there was some dispute between him and Richhpal over the drawing of a picture by Hari Singh on his slate and that he ran after Richhpal and that Richhpal collided with Prithviraj and that one of his teeth was broken. He then states that next day he was assaulted by the two respondents. He was felled down. Respondent Dhanpat sat over his chest and gave a blow with a one seer weight. He lost two teeth, one was broken half and two teeth became loose. At that time the prosecution witnesses Dhanraj, Juharraj and Hansraj came and they rescued him. He then states that next day he was assaulted by the two respondents. He was felled down. Respondent Dhanpat sat over his chest and gave a blow with a one seer weight. He lost two teeth, one was broken half and two teeth became loose. At that time the prosecution witnesses Dhanraj, Juharraj and Hansraj came and they rescued him. His statement about the loss of teeth is corroborated by the statement of Satyanand PW/4 who initially treated Harisingh. When he examined the boy he found that the two teeth were broken on the upper side and were bent inward. He also found that two teeth were loose. In cross examination he stated that the two teeth broken and bent were in existence. The upper portions of the two teeth had broken. PW/9 Dr. S. N. Verma also supports the statement of Harisingh on the point that his teeth were broken. I find general agreement in the statements of the witnesses as to the manner and number of the teeth broken. The discrepancies emphasised by the Magistrate, in my opinion, is the result of too superficial examination of the statements of these witnesses. No reason has been shown why this witness should falsely implicate the accused. Learned counsel for the respondents commented upon the evidence of this witness and made the following points for discarding his evidence— (1) It was contended that Harisingh PW/3 is a child witness. (2) That he should be deemed to have had a grudge against the respondent Richhpal as the accused respondent Richhpal had told him that the picture on the slate was the picture of his dead father. He also contended that the statement of the witness that the accused struck one blow with one seer weight even after the arrival of the witnesses is not convincing; and lastly, (3) It was pointed out that the statement as to how many teeth were broken is discrepant with other evidence. 30. In my opinion, none of the grounds relied upon by the counsel for the respondents can be considered sufficient to reject his evidence. Although Hari Singh is a young boy of 13 years, he is a student of sixth class and is intelligent enough to make a proper statement. His statement cannot be discarded on the ground that he is a child witness. Although Hari Singh is a young boy of 13 years, he is a student of sixth class and is intelligent enough to make a proper statement. His statement cannot be discarded on the ground that he is a child witness. There is nothing to show that he was tutored to make the present statement. The fact that Richhpal told him that the picture on the slate was that of his dead father cannot provide a motive for falsely implicating the accused-respondent. I also do not find anything unnatural in the statement of the witness when he says that even after the arrival of the witnesses on the spot the accused Dhanpat put one more blow upon his neck. As regards the statement about the number of teeth broken, I have already shown that the statements of the witnesses are generally consistent. Besides, in the very nature of things the statement as to which tooth is affected and which tooth was causing pain cannot be very precise. In my opinion, the evidence of Harisingh PW/3 is quite reliable and fit to act upon. 31. His statement is further supported by Dhanraj PW/5. The mere fact that Dhanraj is the brother of the grandfather of the injured, cannot be a ground for summary rejection of his evidence. It is well settled that the fact that the witness is a relation of the injured or the deceased, can not be a ground for rejection of his evidence. The relations are not expected to implicate false persons and screen the real offender. The learned counsel in criticising his evidence stated that his eye sight was weak and that he could not identify Richhpal and that he did not mention infliction of the injury on the neck. Non-identification of Richhpal by him cannot affect the evidentiary value of his statement with regard to the case as a whole, and simply because he did not notice the infliction of the injury on the neck, cannot be a ground for rejecting his evidence. After going through his statement, I consider his statement reliable. His evidence corroborates the evidence of Hari Singh. 32. Hansraj PW/6 ofcourse is a chance witness and the Deputy Government Advocate also did not place much reliance upon his evidence. I, therefore, need not discuss his evidence in any detail. PW/7 Juharmal initially did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. His evidence corroborates the evidence of Hari Singh. 32. Hansraj PW/6 ofcourse is a chance witness and the Deputy Government Advocate also did not place much reliance upon his evidence. I, therefore, need not discuss his evidence in any detail. PW/7 Juharmal initially did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. In cross examination by the prosecuting Sub-Inspector he made a statement implicating the accused. Although his statement by itself cannot be given much value but is capable of lending corroboration to the evidence of Hari Singh PW/3 and Dhanraj PW/5. The evidence of these witnesses prove in the main the prosecution case that the injured Hari Singh was assaulted by Dhanpat and Richhpal and was felled down and that he was given blow which resulted in the fracture of the teeth. 33. Now, taking up the defence evidence, Gopal DW/1 has been produced to show that Hansraj PW/6 did not go to Ujjalwas. Evidence of this type is of no great consequence and besides I have not placed much reliance upon the evidence of Hansraj and this evidence, therefore, cannot help the defence to any appreciable extent. Roshan Khan DW/2 and Rajaram DW/ 3 have been produced to show some enmity between the family of the injured and the accused. Roshan Khan DW/2 stated that litigation was going on between the parties and that there was a dispute over some females. He stated that the aunt of Hari Singh fell in the well and that Hetram father of Dhanpat had made a mention of that fact to some one. No documentary evidence has been produced to show the pendency of litigation between the parties. The statement of the witness does not prove the existence of any serious enmity between the parties. It is also significant that the prosecution witnesses were not questioned as to the facts sought to be established by the defence witnesses. Rajaram DW/3 has been produced to show that Hari Singh was not injured and that he did not lose any of his teeth. No reliance can be placed upon the evidence of this witness in the face of the medical witness and the fact that Hari Singh on observation by this Court was found with some teeth missing. 34. Rajaram DW/3 has been produced to show that Hari Singh was not injured and that he did not lose any of his teeth. No reliance can be placed upon the evidence of this witness in the face of the medical witness and the fact that Hari Singh on observation by this Court was found with some teeth missing. 34. On a critical consideration of the evidence and the circumstances of the case, it has been clearly proved beyond all manner of doubt that the injured Hari Singh was assaulted by Dhanpat and that Dhanpat gave a blow upon the face of the injured Hari Singh in consequence whereof Hari Singh lost some of his teeth. So far as this accused-respondent Richhpal is concerned, the only case against him is that he held Hari Singh by hands when Dhanpat was sitting on the chest and was dealing a blow. Richhpal is a child of about eight years and I do not feel inclined to accept that he had any criminal intention to aid his father in the commission of the offence under sec. 325, Indian Penal Code. Considering his age and the subordinate part imputed, I do not feel inclined to convict him and he is exonerated. 35. In the result, the appeal is accepted, acquittal of Dhanpat is set aside and he is found guilty under sec. 325 Indian Penal Code and is convicted of the same. Considering the question of sentence, I find that the incident took place in the year 1962 and more than three years have passed. The dispute arose over a petty quarrel between the two school students, and Dhanpat as a father of one of the two students, exceeded the reasonable limit and sought to punish the other boy. He is responsible for inflicting one blow upon the face of the injured which resulted in the loss of teeth. In these circumstances, after such a long interval of time, I do not propose to send the respondent Dhanpat to jail. Since the sentence of imprisonment is obligatory under sec. 325, Indian Penal Code, I sentence him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court in addition to a fine of Rs. 30/-. The respondent Dhanpat is given one months time to pay the fine. If he does not pay the fine, he will undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. 36. 325, Indian Penal Code, I sentence him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court in addition to a fine of Rs. 30/-. The respondent Dhanpat is given one months time to pay the fine. If he does not pay the fine, he will undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. 36. Richhpal the other accused-respondent is exonerated.