ORDER
1. In this revision the petitioner challenges his conviction u/S. 333 of the Penal Code and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year as confirmed by the appellant Court.
2. The facts of the case as deposed to by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 (the injured and eye-witnesses) in brief are : The accused was working as a watch-man in the office of the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Tadepalligudem in West Godavari. P.W. 1 was working as an Assistant Manager in the said office and was public servant within the meaning of S. 21, IPC while so on 1-5-86 at 9.00 a.m. one Lanka Suryanarayana and another Tota Ram Rao (P.W. 5) (Staff of the said office) were coming to the office with coding reports for being presented before P.W. 1. The accused standing near the entrance gate, obstructed them from going into the office and also abused them in filthy language. Both of them therefore, having managed to go inside reported the misbehaviour of the accused to P.W. 1. On 2-5-1986 at about 9-00 a.m. P.W. 6 and another Gopalakrishnamurthy were coming to the Office with sample packets. The accused obstructed them and also abused them in filthy language. They also made a report to P.W. 1 regarding the high-handed behaviour of the accused. P.W. 1 in his turn informed to the complaints made to him on 1-5-1986 and 2-5-86 to P.W. 7 the incharge District Manager. P.W. 7 thereupon issued orders of suspension of the accused and got them served through P.W. 1. They were served on the accused at about 1-00 p.m. on 2-5-86. Having received the suspension orders, the accused left the office. Again at about 2-45 p.m., the accused went into the office room of P.W. 1, abused P.W. 1 in filthy language for having secured the suspension orders and serve the same upon him, and beat him with a bamboo stick on both the hands and right side head of P.W. 1. This trespass and attack was also witnessed by P.Ws. 2 and 1. Later P.W. 1 was examined by the Doctor P.W. 9. The Doctor (P.W. 9) noticed one grievous injury being a fracture and two simple injuries on the body of P.W. 1. The wound certificate is Ex. P. 6 while the X-ray film and reports are Exs. P. 4 and P. 5 respectively. When examined u/S. 313, Cr.P.C., the accused denied commission of the offence. Both the Courts below on a consideration of the entire material on record and for cogent and convincing reasons assigned found the accused guilty u/S. 333, IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Hence this revision.
3. Mr. Pattabhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner while contending that there is no evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, submitted that at the most offence may fall u/S. 332, IPC and not u/S. 333 of the Penal Code. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that both the Courts below have, on an apprisal of the entire material on record, recorded, a finding of guilt u/S. 333, IPC against the petitioner and that there are no grounds for interference in this revision.
4. The evidence of P.W. 1, the injured witness, and of P.Ws. 2 and 4, the eye-witnesses, clinchingly establishes that on the date and at the time of the offence the accused having entered into the room of P.W. 1 beat him with a bamboo stick resulting in three injuries, one of them being grievous. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 is consistent throughout and corroborating with each other on all material particulars and there are absolutely no reasons to doubt their veracity. Both the Courts below have also concurrently recorded a finding of guilt against the accused-petitioner. Therefore, I find that the evidence on record abundantly proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has beaten P.W. 1 with a bamboo stick resulting in three injuries one of them a fracture.
5. The crucial question that follows is, whether the offence falls u/S. 333 or 332 of the Penal Code.
6. At the outset, it is relevant to extract S. 333, IPC which reads :
“333. Voluntarility Causing Grievous Hurt to Deter Public Servant from his Duty : Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
7. The prime and basic difference as regards their scope between Ss. 333 and 325 of the Penal Code is that the latter provisions gets attracted whenever there is a grievous hurt caused, whereas it is the former provision that gets attracted if such hurt is caused to a public servant. Again all cases of hurt of a public servant do not amount to an offence under S. 333, IPC. The assault or attack should necessarily have nexus to the lawful discharge of duty by the public servant. This is a very essential ingredient to constitute an offence u/S. 332 or 333, IPC.
8. The decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by Mr. Pattabhi in Chattaiah v. State of A.P., is a case where at the material time the complainant therein was employed as a Typist in the Panchayat Samithi. The charge against the accused therein was that he caused hurt to the complainant in the Samiti Office to deter him from discharging his duties. The learned Judges on a scrutiny of the FIR, found that the incident was not the outcome of anything connected with the performance of the complaint’s duty as public servant, and that there was not even an obliquitous all (Sic) getting (sic) suggesting that the complainant was assaulted with intent to prevant or deter him from doing his official duty. All that was alleged in the FIR, was that while the complainant was attending to dispatch work in the office, the accused approached and questioned him as to why the complainant had abuses them and on the denial of the complainant of the accusation, the accused beat him. In that set of facts, the conviction u/S. 333 was altered by the Supreme Court into one u/S. 323, IPC.
9. In the instant case the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 shows that on 1-5-86 and 2-5-86 the accused obstructed and abused them while they were entering into the office and therefore they made an oral complaint to P.W. 1. P.W. 1 in his turn informed of the complaint to P.W. 7 the incharge District Manager, secured orders of suspension from P.W. 7 and effected service of the same on the accused at about 1-00 p.m., on 2-5-87. It was at about 2-45 p.m., on 2-5-86 i.e. within about two hours of the service of suspension orders, the accused went into the room of P.W. 1 and beat him with a bamboo stick resulting in P.W. 1’s sustaining three injuries, one of them being grievous. This attack thus, is potently in consequence of the procuring and effecting service of the suspension orders by P.W. 1 as Assistant Manager of the Office of the Food Corporation of Indian, Tedepallegudem substatially falling under the third part of S. 333, IPC. Thus, the facts before the Supreme Court pointed out supra are distinguishable from those on hand.
10. The decision of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Jageshwar Dayal v. The State, is also a case where the public Servant was assaulted consequent upon a report made by him against the patwari accused. It was therefore held that the offence falls under S. 332, IPC.
11. The Supreme Court also in Munimiya v. State of Gujarat, 1970 (4) SCC 777 (Sic) held that though the Driver of the State Bus was not actually driving the bus and the bus was standstill, still his action in stopping the accused therein from entering into the bus through the Driver’s cabin was one in discharging his duties as public servant and therefore the causing of grievous hurt by the accused to the Driver falls u/S. 333, IPC.
12. In the instant case also, inasmuch as the attack and beating by the accused resulting in P.W.’s sustaining a grievous injury besides two other simple injuries being obviously one consequent upon P.W. 1’s procuring and effecting service of suspension orders on the accused at about 1-00 p.m., viz, just one hour-and forty-five minutes earlier to the time of incident, the offence satisfies the third part of the provision contemplated by S. 333. viz. Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person being a public servant in consequence of anything done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant. Consequently, the accused-petitioner is liable for the offence u/S. 333, IPC as convicted by both the Courts below.
13. On the question of sentence, the learned counsel submitted that the accused is a Adi Andhra Christian and that the offence also took place as long back as five years ago and therefore lenient view may be taken. In the circumstances while confirming the conviction under S. 333, IPC, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to six months. With this modification in sentence the revision is dismissed.
14. Petition dismissed.