Judgment:
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.
1. This appeal after grant of special leave has come for hearing after a lapse of eight years in a case where the accused non-petitioner was tried for offence under Section 332 IPC and acquitted.
2. The prosecution came with a case that on December 12, 1974 when Pukhraj Lukkad, an Overseer, had gone for disconnecting the water connection of Ambalal accused along with the staff members of the office of Public Health Engineering Department, Nathdwara, namely, Sohan Singh Fitter, Bhadwar Singh, Laxmi Lal and Bahadur Singh, Ambalal stated that water connection may not be disconnected on which he was asked to deposit the dues but he denied and hence disconnection was done. At that time, it is stated that Ambalal started abusing Pukhraj and manhandled him. The report of the incident was lodged by himself with police station, Nathdwara on which a cause was registered for offence under Sections 332 and 323 IPC and investigation commenced. Pukhraj was got medically examined but the Doctor found no external injury on his person. Site inspection plan and memo was prepared which is Ex.P 4. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was forwarded to the court of Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara. The accused-respondent was tried where the prosecution had examined seven witnesses in support of its case. The learned trial court after appraisal of evidence acquitted the accused-respondent of the charges against which this appeal has been filed after obtaining leave.
3. It is contended by Mr. Mathur that there is overwhelming evidence on record to substantiate the prosecution story of the man-handling the complainant Pukhraj by accused Ambalal at a time when the former had gone for disconnecting the water connection. It is submitted that the finding of the learned trial court to the effect that story of throwing the shoe on the complainant Pukhraj, has not been mentioned in the FIR which is a minor discrepancy which ought not to have been given much weight. Besides that other finding that there was no occasion for him to have gone which the authority for disconnecting the water connection had already been given to a fitter coupled with the fact that order for disconnection had not been produced, are the grounds which were not sufficient for recording the acquittal as it is proved on record that the complainant, Pukhraj, did go on the spot with other members of the staff and the water connection was disconnected and, therefore, it is submitted that it is a fit case for reversal of the order of acquittal.
4. Non appeared for the accused. I have gone through the entire record of the case and do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment to warrant an interference in an order of acquittal. According to the prose-tion witnesses including the complainant, Pukhraj, himself the man-handling part took place after the water connection was severed. Prior to that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the accused had offered to pay the money in instalments and the Overseer stated that it is beyond his powers to do so and the accused Ambalal thereafter kept mum with the result that pipe-line was disconnected; after digging the pit. Till then there is no evidence worth the name on record that the accused either lost his temper or did anything to annoy, insult, humiliate or beat the complainant. It is thereafter that the complainant Pukhraj himself told him that he can still reconnect the connection provided money is deposited. It is there that the accused had told him that he should go and do his duty and thereafter he suddenly hurled his shoe towards Pukhraj. I am unable to understand as to why the complainant, Pukhraj, ought to have said for re-connection after it had already been disconnected. Once an order had been issued and that the accused had offered to pay the dues in instalments and his offer was rejected and thereafter actually the disconnection had taken place no authority vested in the Overseer to have ordered the re-connection. It appears that something transpired between the accused and the complainant subsequent to this disconnection which resulted in hot exchanges and, therefore, the genesis as to why the criminality came in between them, has not been brought on record.
5. In this view of the matter the finding of the learned Magistrate that the story of throwing the shoe has not been mentioned in the First Information Report assumes importance. The prosecution witnesses have sought to exaggerate the story at trial than the one it was in the First Information Report. Hence I do not find any ground to take a view different than the one taken by the learned Magistrate. Consequently the appeal fails and is dismissed.