JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant was indicted in a criminal case registered at the Police Station Cristian Gan) Ajmer on 12.12.2001 for offence under Sections 341 and 384 IPC. As per the case of the prosecution, complainant Jagdish submitted a written report at the police station mentioning therein that he was plying City Bus No RNW 407 and Mithalal was conductor on the bus. On the day of occurrence the appellant Hakarn met him at the Vaishali Nagar Bus-stand and demanded Rs 20/- from him for liquor. On his refusal to meet his demand, he told that all the bus owners used to pay him money and that he will have to pay the amount. The complainant when left the place, appellant Hakam told him that if he does not pay Rs. 20/- by now, then on return he will have to pay Rs. 50/- but at that time the complainant and Mithu went from the place with their bus. It was mentioned that in the evening at about 6.00 P.M. when they returned to Vaishall Nagar Bus Stand and were going to the Dhaba of Durga, the appellant stopped them. It was alleged that at the point of knife he demanded Rs. 50/- and also told that if money is not given to him he will cause injury by knife. When Mittu Lal refused to fulfil his demand, the accused pushed Mitthu Lal, a maruti car coming on the road hit him and the tyre of the car ran over the leg due to which the right leg of Mitthu Lal got fractured. it was mentioned that he was not able to see the full numbers of Maruti Car and was able to see only RJ-01-3791. Mitthu was taken to JLN Hospital and was admitted there. On the basis of this written report Ex.P.2, the police registered formal FIR Ex.P.3 and proceeded with the investigation. During the course of investigation, the appellant was arrested, the injured Mitthu Lal was medically examined and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. After usual investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the appellant for offence under Sections 341, 323, 325, 308 and 384 IPC in the court of concerned Judicial Magistrate, who having found the offence exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge. After usual investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the appellant for offence under Sections 341, 323, 325, 308 and 384 IPC in the court of concerned Judicial Magistrate, who having found the offence exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge. From where the case was entrusted to the learned trial court for trial. 2. The learned trial court on the basis of the material available on is record and hearing the parties, framed charge against the appellant for offence under Sections 323, 384, 325 and 308 IPC to which the appellant denied and claimed trial. 3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as witnesses and produced some documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegation of pushing the injured. 4. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial court found the prosecution case as alleged, proved and having found the accused appellant guilty of the offence under Sections 323. 325 and 384 IPC and vide its judgment of dated 16.10.2002 convicted and sentenced him as under:- U/s 323 IPC to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-. In default thereof to further undergo seven days' imprisonment; U/s 325 IPC to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. in default thereof to further suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days; U/s 384 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default thereof to further suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence and material on record. 6. Mr. Had Kishan Sharma, Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case no offence either under Section 384 or under Sections 323 and 325 IPC is made out against the appellant. Referring the evidence on record, learned Amicus Curiae contended that the act of the appellant cannot be said to be voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt so as to maintain his conviction under Sections 323 and 325 IPC . 7. Referring the evidence on record, learned Amicus Curiae contended that the act of the appellant cannot be said to be voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt so as to maintain his conviction under Sections 323 and 325 IPC . 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the impugned judgment has contended that no interference is required to be called for in the impugned judgment by this Court as the impugned judgment is based on proper appreciation of evidence. 8. I have considered the rival submissions. 9. Before adverting to the argument raised on behalf of the appellant, I so would like to refer the evidence on record in brief. 10. PW4 Jagdish, complainant in the case, was the driver of the city bus. After describing the manner of the occurrence he has stated that when he and Mitthu refused to fulfil the demand of accused Hakam, he pushed Mitthu infront of vehicle and as a result thereof Mitthu met an accident with a Maruti car being No. 3791 and his leg got fractured. In his cross-examination this witness has deposed that the quarrel took place on a public road where vehicles used to come and go. However, the witness has denied the suggestion that the injured fell down because of quarrel but he was pushed by Hakam. He has categorically admitted this fact that the car came suddenly. 11. PW6 Mitthu Lai is the injured in the case. In his examination in chief this witness has stated that he refused to pay the demanded amount. in the to meantime one Maruti car was coming from Regional College, the accused pushed him and tyre of Maruti car ran over his leg as a result of which he sustained injury on his right leg. His leg was fractured and blood oozed out. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that many vehicles pass through the road and that the car came suddenly. The witness has admitted la further that the appellant pushed him before he could reach at the divider. 12. From the evidence discussed above it is evident that no amount was given to the appellant and, therefore, the question that arises for consideration of this Court is whether conviction of appellant for offence under Section 384 IPC can be said to be sustained. 13. Section 384 IPC provides punishment for extortion. 12. From the evidence discussed above it is evident that no amount was given to the appellant and, therefore, the question that arises for consideration of this Court is whether conviction of appellant for offence under Section 384 IPC can be said to be sustained. 13. Section 384 IPC provides punishment for extortion. while Section 383 IPC defines the word 'Extortion' which means that whoever intentionally puts any person in fear or cause any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put In fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which 2a may be convened into a valuable security, commits 'extortion'. 14. In Labhshanker Keshavii and another v. State, AIR 1955 Saurashtra 42 a Division Bench of Saurashtra High Court has occasion to consider the question as to when offence under Section 384 IPC can be said to be made out. Considering the provisions of Section 384 If the Division Bench held that the essence of the offence of extortion is in the actual delivery of possession of the property by the person put in fear and the offence is net complete before such delivery. In the case at hand, discussed above, no money was paid to the appellant pursuant to his threat, and therefore. in absence of payment of the demanded amount to the as appellant. Ingredients of Section 383 IPC are not at all attracted and thus, conviction of the-appellant under Section 384 IPC cannot be maintained and is liable to be set aside. 15. The next question for consideration of this Court Is as to what offence can be said to be made out against the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial court has convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 323 and 325 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt and for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Section 323 IPC provides punishment for 'voluntarily causing hurt'. Section 321 IPC defines 'voluntarily causing hurt'. As per this Section whoever does any act with the intention 43 of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said 'voluntarily cause hurt'. Section 325 IPC provides punishment for 'voluntarily causing grievous hurt'. As per this Section whoever does any act with the intention 43 of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said 'voluntarily cause hurt'. Section 325 IPC provides punishment for 'voluntarily causing grievous hurt'. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt- is defined under Section 322 IPC and as per this section, so whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is said "voluntarily to cause grievous hurt". As per explanation to Section 322 IPC. a person is not said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt except when he both causes grievous hurt and intends or knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt. But he is said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt, if intending or knowing himself to he likely to cause grievous hurt of one kind, he actually causes grievous hurt of another kind Section 39 defines the word 'voluntarily' which means that a person is said to cause an effect 'voluntarily' when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it; or by means which, at the time of employing those means. he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it. Thus, an injury shall be deemed to be will-fully caused whensoever the person from whose act or omission such injury results, whether he directly intended it to result from his act or omission, or believing that it was in any degree probable that such injury would result from his act or omission, incurred the risk of causing such injury. 16. A bare perusal of Section 321 IPC and the explanation to Section 322 IFC make it clear that either the ingredient of 'intention' or that of 'knowledge'. must be essentially present in order to constitute the offence under Section 323 or 325 IPC. If the evidence available on record as a discussed hereinabove, is taken into consideration on its face value, it cannot be said that the accused appellant pushed the injured on the road with Intention or knowledge that the mania car would hit the injured and the injured would sustain hurt or grievous hurt. If the evidence available on record as a discussed hereinabove, is taken into consideration on its face value, it cannot be said that the accused appellant pushed the injured on the road with Intention or knowledge that the mania car would hit the injured and the injured would sustain hurt or grievous hurt. The evidence available on record clearly indicates that the maruti car came suddenly. In this view of the as matter, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that there was any intention of the appellant or that he was knowing that his act wilt result in causing hurt or grievous hurt to the injured. 17. From the prosecution evidence what stands proved is that the so appellant pushed the injured and thus used 'criminal force' which is punishable under Section 352 IPC. 18. As a result of the above discussion, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed. He is acquitted of the charges under Sections 384, 323 and 325 IPC instead he is convicted under Section 352 IPC and is sentenced to undergo 33 rigorous imprisonment for one month. Appellant has been released from jail after having undergone a period of about 2 years as such he need riot to surrender to serve out the sentence of one month in by this Court.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******