IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.23 of 2011 RAMJOTI DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02. 08.04.2011. Heard Sri Rajendra Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Parmanand Prasad, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. The present application has been filed by the complainant of Complaint Case No.1500 of 2003, Trial No.2575 of 2010 seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 23.12.2010 by which the respondents were acquitted of the charges under Sections 341, 504, 379 IPC. The charges in fact under Sections 341 and 504 IPC were framed against all the accused persons and that under Section 379 IPC was framed only against accused Shyamnath Mandal and Satrughan Mandal for snatching a hasuli and Rs.1,000/- respectively from the possession of the complainant, P.W.4. The prosecution case in short was that the respondent Ganga Mandal was stealthily cutting the banana tress of the complainant situated in the backyard of the residence of the complainant. The complainant opposed the cutting 2 of plants as a result of which an altercation took place between the parties and other persons who also came there and surrounded the complainant and started abusing her by hurling filthy abuses upon her. At the orders of Ganga Mandal all the accused assaulted the complainant with fists and slaps and accused Sukeshwar Mandal held her saree whereas accused Shyamnath Mandal snatched the silver hasuli from her person and accused Shatrughan Mandal took away Rs.1,000/-. The witnesses were supporting the allegations as regards the facts as detailed in the complainant petition. The learned Magistrate took up each of the charges separately and considered proof thereof through the evidence and came to hold that there was lack of evidence on fact that before assaulting the complainant the accused persons had wrongly restrained and abused her and in that view, the charges under Section 341 and 504 IPC were not established beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. So far as charge under Section 379 IPC in respect of snatching a silver hasuli and cash of Rs.1,000/- was concerned the whole story was doubted by the learned Magistrate by reading the evidence of the complainant herself. It was noted 3 by the trial Magistrate that in the complaint petition the hasuli was said to be of silver whereas as per the evidence of P.W.4 it was of gold (P.W.4 para-1)which created a doubt in the mind of the Magistrate regarding the entire story of theft as propounded by the complainant. The court below held that the evidence was surely there on the record indicating that the complainant had been assaulted by the accused persons and as such was upholding the charge under that Section, i.e., 323 IPC and thereafter directed the release of the respondents on due admonition. If one considers the offence punishable under Section 504 IPC in the light of the evidence then one could not take a different view than taken by the learned Magistrate. Section 504 reads as under:- “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.—Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” On splitting the constituent ingredients of offence under Section 504 IPC it has to be 4 shown by evidence that the insult was intentional and that provoked any person to whom the insult was heaped and that insult provoked the insulted persons to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. There is no evidence on the record found by the court below which could indicate that on account of being abused by the accused persons, the complaint was averring before the court below that she was provoked in such a way that she felt breaking the public peace or felt committing any other offences. These are the most important ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 504 IPC. If any of the ingredients which constituted an offence-law is like that-is not established by evidence then no one could be convicted for committing that particular offence. Likewise, as regards the offence under Section 341 of the IPC the evidence must show that the person was wrongfully restrained as has been defined under Section 339 of the IPC so as to causing voluntary obstruction to any person, so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed. As in the complaint petition so in the evidence, the complainant was not telling that 5 she was about to leave the place of occurrence so as to going to any other place; may be her house, and the accused persons voluntarily obstructed her way out and, thus, wrongfully restrained her. If the evidence was not of that sort then the trial court could not be faulted for acquitting the accused persons under Section 341 IPC. This court was thrilled to note that a Magistrate of Ist Class was recording a view after appreciating the evidence and considered the statements of witnesses to judge as to whether a particular offence was established by evidence led by the prosecution. She was contrasting the statement of the complaint which was made in the complaint petition as regards the nature of the make of the hasuli with that which was claimed by her through her evidence and as such was going to reject the whole story of theft. If the complainant was not shy of making a false statement as regards the silver hasuli, then it was quite natural that the court should throw out her case under Section 379 IPC, specially when she was further contradicting her statement made in the complaint petition by deviating as to who snatched hausali and who the money from her. 6 The order of acquittal of the respondents of the charges under Sections 341 and 504 appears properly passed after due and proper consideration of evidence which does not require any interference and as such does not permit me to grant Special Leave to appeal and the same is dismissed. The dismissal could be blended with another defect, i.e., intervention of 40 days of limitation in the filing of the present Special Leave Application. The petition is dismissed on the above reasons. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)