Vinay Kumar Kujur vs State Of Chhattisgarh

1
VED
PRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Digitally signed
by VED
PRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Date:
2026.10.28
18:23:35 +0530

CGHC010152842016 2026:CGHC:45649
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1195 of 2016
Reserved for Judgment on 14/10/2026
Judgment delivered on 28/10/2026
Vinay Kumar Kujur S/o Gabrial Kujur Aged About 50 Years R/o Village
Juradand, Police Station Bagicha, District Jahspur Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Chowki Pandrapath, Station
House Officer, Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithawa, Deputy G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
C.A.V. Judgment
The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under
1.
Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.09.2016
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Jashpur, District

2
Jashpur, in Sessions Case No. 63 of 2015, whereby the appellant
has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-
CONVICTION SENTENCE
U/s. 333 of IPC R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.
2000/-, in default of payment of fine
additional R.I. for 3 months.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 10.01.2015, at about
2.
2:00 p.m. when the complainant Kishore Kumar Gupta, who was the
Cluster Coordinator, was working in his office, the appellant who was
the Headmaster, came there and by abusing the filthy language,
assaulted him by stone, by which he received injuries on his nose,
eye and shoulder. By the assault made by the stone, his shoulder
bone was got fractured, his coat was torn and he torn the official
register by which, the complainant deterred from discharging public
duty. The persons, who were present nearby, have intervened. On
10.01.2015 itself, the complainant lodged a written complaint (exhibit
P-6) to the police stating therein that the appellant has committed the
offence for the reason that, the teacher Smt. Anita Jaiswal asked the
appellant to maintain the proper record of transaction of rice and then
he misbehaved with her and she was informing the said incident to
him and at that time, the appellant committed marpeet with him. The
complainant was sent for his medical examination to Community
Health Centre, Bagicha, where he was medically examined by PW-2,
Dr. Mithilesh Minj, who after his medical examination gave MLC
report (exhibit P-3), in which he found swelling with tenderness on left
mid-clavicular region, abrasion on left mid-ring finger, dorsal little

3
finger, left side of nose. He referred the injured to Radiologist for x-
ray examination of chest. On 15.01.2015, the x-ray pad was
produced before the doctor, who gave the x-ray report (exhibit P-4),
by which he found fracture of left clavicle bone. Injury was grievous in
nature caused by hard object and injury No.2 was simple in nature.
Unnumbered FIR (exhibit P-1) was registered on 18.01.2015 against
the appellant for the offence under Section 294, 506 and 325 of IPC.
Thereafter, the numbered FIR (exhibit P-2) was registered.
Spot map (exhibit P-7) was prepared by the police. The mid-day meal
3.
register which was torn by the appellant has been seized vide seizure
memo (exhibit P-8). A piece of stone has also been seized vide
seizure memo (exhibit P-9). The piece of stone was also sent for its
query report to the doctor, who gave the query report (exhibit P-5)
and opined that the said piece of stone can cause the fracture, which
was found in the body of Kishore Kumar Jaiswal. The appellant was
arrested on 16.06.2015.
Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of CrPC have been
4.
recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet
was filed against the appellant for the offence under Sections 294,
506, 186, 332, 333, 353 and 426 of the IPC before the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha. The case was committed to
the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, from where it was transferred
to the learned trial Court for its trial.

4
The learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant for the
5.
offence under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 186, 333 and 426 of the IPC.
The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial.
In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution
6.
has examined as many as 09 witnesses. Statement of the appellant
under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded, in which he denied the
circumstances that appears against him, pleaded innocence and has
submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. In his
defence, he would submit that on 06.01.2015, there was a Cluster
meeting was held with respect to distribution of coupons for mid-day
meal and the complainant Kishore Gupta obtained his
acknowledgement in the mid-day meal register, but has not given him
the coupons. When he objected that if an inquiry team would come,
then he would be charged for misappropriation and he would be in
difficulty and asked for coupons, but he refused to give him the
coupon and started altercation and then he came back from there
without coupon. On 10.01.2015, Kishore Gupta storing the rice of
mid-day meal at cluster building from PDS, then he informed the
teacher of Primary School, Prakash Tigga that they have not received
the coupon and Kishore Gupta is storing the rice at cluster building,
whereas the rules provided that rice should be stored in Primary
School and Middle School, respectively as per its allotment. There is
chances of forgery and they will be charged for the offence of
corruption and then he asked Kishore Gupta not to do any wrong
work and then he started abusing him with filthy language and made

5
allegation that he is committing theft and started altercation with him
and threw him on the floor, which was witnessed by the cook Dev
Prasad Yadav and teacher Jhemuram Banwasi and they intervened.
Thereafter Kishore Gupta, threatened him that he will get him out of
service and spoiled his life. Subsequently he came to know that he
roped him in a false case. In support of his defence, he himself
examined as DW-1 and also examined DW-2, Jhemuram Banwasi
and DW-3, Dev Prasad Yadav.
After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the
7.
prosecution, the learned trial court acquitted the appellant from the
offence of Sections 294, 506 part-II, 186 and 426 of IPC, but has
convicted for the offence under Section 333 of the IPC and
sentenced him, as has been mentioned in the earlier part of this
judgment. Hence this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is
8.
innocence and has been falsely implicated in the offence. The
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of
prosecution witnesses, which cannot be made basis to convict him
for the alleged offence. The appellant had gone to cluster office for
raising objection about storing of the rice and non-supply of coupons
to him despite obtaining acknowledgment in the register, but it is the
complainant himself started altercation and abusing him by raising
allegation of theft and during the scuffling, the complainant fell down
on the floor, by which he received injuries on his body. No assault

6
has been made by the appellant to him by stone or any other object.
There was no intention to cause injury to him or to deter him from
discharging from the official duty. He would also submit that he
bonafidely raised objection in the conduct in discharging the official
duty of the complainant. He would further submit that he also
immediately lodged a complaint to the police on 11.01.2015, but his
complaint has not been investigated. He also approached the higher
authority raising his complaint, but no action has been taken. The
villagers have also made various complaints with respect to the
conduct of the complainant Kishore Gupta and his arbitrary action in
distribution of mid-day meal rice and coupons. He would further
submit that the other witness Smt. Anita Jaiswal is the wife of the
complainant and her evidence is not sufficient and reliable to convict
the appellant for the alleged offence as she is the interested witness.
The other witness Akash Ram (PW-5) has not supported the
prosecution case and there are material discrepancies and
inconsistencies in the evidence of Chhatrapati Yadav (PW-6) and
Rajkumar (PW-7). He would also submit that on the same set of
evidence, the appellant has been acquitted from the offence of
Sections 186, 506 part-II and 426 of the IPC and therefore, the
conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 333 cannot
be sustained. The dispute between the complainant and the
appellant is the service dispute and to settle his personal score, the
complainant lodged the report, in which the appellant has been
convicted. The conviction of the appellant and sentence awarded to

7
him suffers from illegality and non-appreciation of evidence in its
proper form and therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes
9.
the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and
submitted that, the prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt, but for minor omissions or contradictions, the
evidence of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to hold the appellant
guilty for the offence under Section 333 of the IPC. Prompt report has
been lodged by the complainant and on being medical examination,
his clavicle bone has been found fractured, which was the grievous
injury. It is alleged by the complainant that while working at the
cluster office, the appellant came there and assaulted him by stone
and torn the official register, which has also been seized in the case.
The evidence of the complainant Kishore Gupta (PW-3) has been
supported by the witnesses Smt. Anita Jaiswal (PW-4), Chhatrapati
Yadav (PW-6) and Rajkumar (PW-7), who clearly deposed that they
witnessed the appellant assaulting the complainant by stone. But for
minor omissions or contradictions their evidence are reliable and
corroborates the evidence of the complainant (PW-3). After making
complaint by the complainant on 10.01.2015, the appellant had
subsequently made his complaint, which is afterthought. He would
further submit that by the defence taken by the appellant, his
presence on the spot he himself admitted and from the evidence of
the witnesses, it has been proved that he assaulted the complainant,
by which he received grievous injury on his body. Even if the
appellant has been acquitted from some of the charged offences, that

8
itself is not sufficient to acquit him from the offence under Section 333
of the IPC, as the ingredients of the said offence has duly been
proved by the prosecution. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal
filed by the appellant and the same is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records
10.
of the trial court.
In the present case, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced
11.
for the offence under Section 333 of the IPC, which provides
voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty.
It is not in dispute that the complainant Kishore Gupta was the public
servant at the time of incident, as provided under Section 21 of the
th
IPC, which defines the public servant. As per clause (b) of 12
description of Section 21 of the IPC, the complainant would be the
public servant.
12. Section 333 of the IPC provides that:-
“ 333. Voluntarily 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

9
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.”
13. The charge against the appellant is that, on 10.01.2015, when the
complainant Kishore Kumar Gupta, Cluster Coordinator discharging
his duty, the appellant assaulted him by stone and caused grievous
injuries and thereby deter him from discharging public duty. In view of
the charge, this Court examined the evidence produced by the
prosecution.
PW-3, Kishore Kumar Gupta is the complainant. He stated in his
14.
evidence that he knew the appellant. On 10.01.2015, he was posted
as Cluster Coordinator at Primary School, Datunpani and he was
discharging his duty in his office. His wife Anita Jaiswal was also
working in the same school as a teacher. On the date of incident, the
appellant who was the headmaster of the same school, misbehaved
his wife Anita Jaiswal on the issue of purchase of teacher’s diary and
maintenance of mid-day meal. At about 2:00 p.m. when she was
making a complaint and informing the incident to him, the appellant
came there pushed his wife and started abusing her. When he tried
to convince him, the appellant started altercation with him and
assaulted him by a stone, by which she received injuries on his left
shoulder and scratched with fingernails and also torn the mid-day
meal register. He threw him on the floor and assaulted him. At the
same time, the persons who came there for rice from the society,
namely Akash Ram, Chhatrapati Yadav and Rajkumar Yadav came to
rescue him and intervened. By the act of the appellant, his official
duty was deterred. He also gave him threatening with dire

10
consequence, if he come to school. Thereafter, he lodged the report,
which is exhibit P-6 and he was sent to hospital. The torn register has
been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-8) and stone has also
been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-9). At this stage, leading
question was asked, in which he admitted that the stone was seized
in presence of the witnesses, Chhatrapati Yadav and Rajkumar.
* The Para 1 and 2 of his examination-in-chief reads as under:-
“01)
मैंन्यायालयउपस्थि तआरोपीकोपहचानताहूँ।घटना
10/01/2015 ,
कीहै उक्तदिनांककोमैंसंकुलसमन्वयकके

पदपरदतूपानीमाध्यमिकशालामेंपदस्थथाऔरप्रतिदिनकी

तरहअपनाशासकीयकार्यकार्यालयमेंबैठकरकररहाथा।

मेरीपत्नीअनिताजायसवालउसीस्कूलमेंशिक्षिकाकेरूपमें
,
कार्यरतहै।उसीदिनमेरीपत्नीकार्यालयमेंकार्यरतहै उन्हें

शिक्षकडायरीखरीदीएवंमध्याह्नभोजनकेरखरखावकेसंबंध

मेंआरोपीद्वारामेरीपत्नीअनिताजायसवालसेअभद्रव्यवहार

करनेकेसंबंधमेंमुझेसमेरेकार्यालयमेंआकरबातकररही
2:00
थी।तभीदोपहर बजेआरोपीविजयकुजूरमेरेकार्यालय

मेंआयाऔरमेरेसामनेमेरीपत्नीअनिताजायसवालकेहाथसे

पत्रकोपकड़करधक्कादेदियाऔरमुझेऔरमेरीपत्नीको
- ,
गंदी गंदीगालीदेनेलगा तबमैंउन्हेंसमझानेकीकोशिश
,
किया तबआरोपीविनयकुजूरमुझसेमारपीटशुरूकरदिया
,
औरमुझेपत्थरसेमारदिया जिससेमेरेकंधेपरचोटलगाऔर
,
मेरेचेहरेसेनौचदिया जिसरजिस्टरमेंमध्याह्नभोजनका
,
हिसाबकररहाथा उसरजिस्टरकोमुझसेछीनकरफाड़दिया

औरमुझेमेराकॉलरपकड़करबाहरनिकालदियाऔरमुझे
  
जमीनमेंपटककरफिरसेमारपीटकरनेलगा।
02)
उसीसमयबगलमेंसोसायटीसेचावललेनेआयेआकाश
, -
राम छत्रपति यादवऔरराजकुमारयादववहाँआकरबीच

बचावकरमुझेआरोपीविनयकुजूरसेछुड़ाये।आरोपीविनय

कुजूरकेउक्तकृत्यसेमेरेशासकीयकार्यकरनेमेंबाधाउत्पन्न

हुआ।आरोपीविनयकुजूरकेद्वारामुझेयहभीकहागयाकि

11
,
तुमस्कूलआओगे तोतुम्हेंजानसेमारदूंगा।यदि छत्रपति
,
यादव राजकुमारयादवऔरआकाशरामवहाँपरनहींआते
,
औरमुझेआरोपीविनयकुजूरसेनहींछुड़ाते तबवहमुझेजान
”
सेमारसकताथा।
* In cross-examination, he admitted that after 8 days of lodging
of the report, the police recorded his statement. He voluntarily stated
that after making is written complaint he was admitted in the hospital.
He firmly stuck in saying that the appellant abused him and his wife.
He further stated that the language of abuse was filthy, therefore, he
has not mentioned the filthy abuse in his written complaint. He also
supported the seizure of the stone and torn register. He also denied
that there was quarrel between them earlier also. From the entire
cross-examination, the defence could not be able to extract any
material, so that it can be held that the evidence of this witness is
suspicious or he deposed falsely against the appellant. He remained
firm in making allegation against the appellant that when he was
working in the cluster office, the appellant came there, abused him
and assaulted him by stone, by which he received injuries and his
clavicle bone was fractured. From the written complaint (exhibit P-6)
lodged by the complainant, it is found that immediately after the
incident, he lodged the written complaint, in which he has given all
the details of the incident and have duly supported in his deposition.
There is no any material discrepancy in his written complaint and
deposition. It is necessary here to note the contents of the written
complaint (exhibit P-6), which reads as under:-
* “ ( )
निवेदनहैकि मैंकिशोरगुप्तापत्ना पुत्र श्रीरामेश्वर
39 ,
प्रसादउम्र वर्ष संकुलशैक्षिकसमन्वयककेपदपरसंकुल

12
10.1.2015
केन्द्रदतूनपानीमेंपदस्थहूँ।यहकि दिनांक को
2:00
लगभग बजेअपनेसंकुलमेंशासकीयकार्यकररहाथा।
( ) -
इसीसमयविनयकुजर प्रधानपाठक नेआकरमुझेगंदी गंदी
- , -
गाली गलौजकरतेहुए गुस्सेमेंअचानकचार पारपत्थरसे
,
जानलेवाप्रहारकिया।जिससेमेरीनाक आंखएवंकंधेकोचोट

आईहै।पत्थरकेहमलेसेकंधेकीहड्डीटूटगईहै।
*
यहकि विनयकुजूरनेमेराहीकोटमेंमेराचेहराको

ढककरमाराजिससेगंभीरचोटआईहैतथाकोटकीबटनटूटी

हैतथाविनयकुजूरद्वारामुझेनाखुनसेनोचागया।
*
इतनाहीनहींविनयकुजूरकेद्वाराशासकीयकार्यकी

रजिस्टरकोफाड़दियागया।एवंशासकीयकार्यमेंबाधाकिया
गया।
*
इसघटनाकेकेसमयमौजूदछत्रपति यादवएवं
-
आकाशरामसहग्रामीणोनेबीच बचावकरमेरीप्राणकीरक्षा
( )
की।यदि उक्तव्यक्ति ग्रामीण नहींरहतेतोमुझेजानसेमार
डालता।
*
यहघटनाहोनेकाकारणकि मा०शा०दतूनपानीमें

पदस्थशिक्षिकाश्रीमतीअनिताजायसवालनेविनयकुमारको
-
शिक्षकडायरीएवंचावलरख रखावकेसंबंधमेंकहनेपरइन्हें
- ,
गाली गलौज अभद्रव्यवहारधक्कामुक्कीकियागया।इसी
( )
बातकोशिक्षिकाकेद्वारासंकुलसमन्वयक मुझे बतायाजा

रहीथी।उसीसमययहघटनाहुआजिसकीगवाहशिक्षिकाभी
है।
*
अतःश्रीमानजीसेनिवेदनहैकि उचितकार्यवाहीकरने
”
कीकृपाकरें।
PW-4, Smt. Anita Jaiswal is the wife of the complainant. She stated in
15.
her evidence that, on 27.12.2014, she asked the appellant to
purchase the teacher’s diary and on that issue she had a talk to him
on 10.01.2015. At that time, at about 1:30-2:00 p.m. the appellant
started abusing her and she was informing the act of the appellant to

13
her husband, who was also posted as cluster coordinator. The
appellant also came there and when her husband was discharging
his duties, the appellant started beating him by holding his collar.
When the appellant started scuffling her, her husband intervened and
then the appellant started beating him. The appellant beat him by
stone, then the witness Chhatrapati Yadav, Rajkumar Yadav and
Akash Ram came there and intervened. The appellant gave nail
scratches on nose of her husband and his shoulder bone was also
fractured. The appellant misbehaved her husband with filthy abuses.
Thereafter, her husband along with Akash Ram and Chhatrapati had
gone to police station for lodging of the report and then he was sent
to hospital for treatment. She subsequently shifted to Ambikapur
hospital. At the time when the appellant raised quarrel, he torn the
cluster register and threatened them with dire consequences.
* In cross-examination, the defence tried to extract the
contradictions with that of her 161 CRPC statement (exhibit D-1), in
which this witness has stated that she disclosed the nose injury and
fracture of bone injury on her husband, but if it is not there, she could
not tell the reason. She also stated that in her police statement
(exhibit D-1) she disclosed that, her husband had gone to lodge the
report along with Akash, Rajkumar and Chhatrapati and he was
initially taken to Bagicha hospital and then shifted to Ambikapur
hospital, but if it is not there, she could not tell the reason.
* In further cross-examination, she shown her ignorance as to
the appellant had joined the school on 30.05.2013 as headmaster

14
and he asked the ex-headmaster Jhemuram Banwasi for handing
over the charge and then he stated that the relevant record of
handing over the charge and keys are with the complainant Kishore
Gupta. She denied that on 06.01.2015, the mid-day meal coupons
were distributed to the headmaster of different schools. She also
denied that the rice of mid-day meal was being kept by her in the
cluster office, but it was kept by Jhemuram Banwasi.
* From perusal of her 161 CrPC statement (exhibit D-1), it
reveals that in her statement, she stated that at the time, when her
husband was discharging her duties, the appellant started scuffling
her and when her husband intervened, the appellant assaulted him
by stone, by which he received injuries on his nose, eyes, left
shoulder and then the witnesses Akash, Chhatrapati and Ramkumar
intervened and the appellant threatened them with dire
consequences. The substantial part of her evidence with respect to
the allegation of marpeet with the complainant and deterring him from
discharging his duties is also there in her 161 CrPC statement and
this Court finds no discrepancy in her evidence. The discrepancy
which the defence tried to extract are minor and trivial in nature,
which does not affect the credibility of this witness.
PW-5, Akash Ram is the eyewitness to the incident. Though he
16.
turned hostile, yet he stated that at the time when he reached on
spot, the appellant and the complainant were quarreling. He saw the
complainant Kishore Gupta, who complaining pain on her shoulder
and nail scratch injury was there on his face, thereafter he along with

15
Chhatrapati took him to police station, where the report was lodged.
When the leading questions were asked, he denied the incident,
however he admitted that he is having good relation with the
appellant. The defence have not asked anything in his cross-
examination.
PW-6, Chhatrapati Yadav is also an eyewitness to the incident. He
17.
stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, they were waiting
for taking rice after submitting his Ration card in the PDS shop
adjacent to the school building. When they heard the noise of quarrel,
they saw that quarrel was going on between appellant Vinay Kujur
and Kishore Gupta. Kishore Gupta was lying on the floor and the
appellant Vinay Kujur was over him and held his jacket by left hand
and assaulting by stone from another hand. Blood was oozing out
from the mouth and nose of Kishore Gupta and he also disclosed
shoulder injury to him. He, Akash and Rajkumar intervened and get
them separated and asked not to quarrel. They took the complainant
th
Kishore to police station, where Kishore Gupta lodged report. On 5 ,
stone was seized from Kishore Gupta vide seizure memo (exhibit P-
9) and register was also seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-8).
* In cross-examination, he admitted that Kishore Gupta lodged
the report on the date of incident itself. He lodged a written
complainant and police has inquired from them on that day itself. He
further admitted that after lodging of the report, Kishore was sent to
th
Bagicha hospital. He explained that the 5 day is 05.01.2015. He
could not remember, as to on which date the register was seized and

16
how many pages are there in the said register. He further admitted
that, he could not tell the weight of the stone. He also admitted that,
he saw the scuffling between appellant Vinay Kujur and Kishore
Gupta. He is well acquainted with the complainant, his wife Anita
Jaiswal and the appellant. He voluntarily stated that he deposed
whatever he has seen.
PW-7, Rajkumar is another eyewitness to the incident. He stated in
18.
his evidence that on 10.01.2015, at about 2:00 p.m., when he had
gone to PDS shop and waiting for his turn, he heard the noise of
quarrel and saw the quarrel between Vinay Kujur and Kishore near
the door of cluster office. He immediately rushed to the place of
incident and till that time scuffling started between them. The
appellant Vinay Kujur scratched the eyes and mouth of the
complainant Kishore by his fingernails, from which blood was oozing
out. The appellant Vinay Kujur had a stone in his hand, which was
about 300 grams, he get them separated and scolded. Thereafter,
the appellant Vinay Kujur left the place and Kishore Gupta had gone
to police station. He also proved the seizure memo (exhibit P-8 and
P-9).
* In cross-examination, though he stated that he could not tell
as to on what issue they were quarreling, but he denied that before
his reaching on the spot, they already quarreled. He voluntarily stated
that he saw the same stone at police station, which was also seen on
the place of incident. He further admitted that at the time when
quarrel between appellant and Kishore Gupta was going on, the

17
register was lying on the floor. He denied that at the time of quarrel,
there was no issue of torn the pages of register. He admitted that he
has not seen anybody, who torn the register. He further admitted that
he has not seen the actual assault made by the appellant upon
Kishore Gupta. He voluntarily stated that he had seen the stone in
the hand of the appellant.
PW-9, Chandrakumar Singar is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police
19.
and Investigating Officer. He proved the investigation which he
conducted in the case and filing of the charge sheet. In cross-
examination, he admitted that the complainant Kishore Gupta has
stated in his written complaint that quarrel took place on the issue of
teacher’s diary and storage of rice. He also seized the register with
respect to mid-day meal. He denied that the appellant Vinay Kujur
has made a written complaint against Kishore Gupta and Anita
Jaiswal. He had the knowledge that the appellant has filed a
complaint case at Bagicha court against Kishore Gupta and Anita
Jaiswal, but he did not know about the stage of the proceedings. He
also did not know that any rojnamcha entry No. 197 dated
11.01.2015 was made on the basis of complaint made by the
appellant or not. He voluntarily stated that the constable of the police
out-post might have knowledge of the same. Since he was not
directed to investigate into the complaint against Kishore Gupta and
Anita Jaiswal, he has not inquired the same. He also did not know
about any cluster meeting dated 06.01.2015. He admitted that in the
written complaint (exhibit P-6), the page number of the register, which
was torn and the words of filthy abuse are not mentioned. He further

18
admitted that he seized the mid-day meal register after 3-4 months of
the incident.
The appellant has taken the following defence in his 313 CrPC
20.
statement, which are as under:-
“ 06/01/2015
घटनाकेकुछदिनपूर्वदिनांक को मध्यांह

भोजनकेसंबंधमेंकूपनबांटेजानेबाबतसंकुलबैठकरखीगई
,
थी जिसमेंप्रार्थीकिशोरगुप्ताकेद्वारामुझेमध्यांहभोजनके
,
रजिस्टरमेंमुझसेपावतीलियागया किन्तुकूपनमुझेनहीदिया
,
गया तबमैंनेकिशोरगुप्तासेकहाकि मुझसेहस्ताक्षर लेलिये
,
औरकूपननहीदिये कलकेदिनमेअगरजांचटीमआजाती
,
है तोबिनामध्यांहभोजनलियेमेरेउपरगबनकाआरोपलग

जायेगाऔरमैंफसजाऊंगा।इसकारणमुझेकूपनदिजिये
,
कहकरजोरदेनेलगा तबकिशोरगुप्तानेमुझेकूपनदेनेसे
,
इंकारकरदियाऔरमुझसेविवादकरनेलगा फिरमैंवहाँसे
10/01/2015
बिनाकूपनलियेचलागया।दिनांक कोकिशोर
. . .
गुप्ताकेद्वारामध्यांहभोजनकाचावलपी डी एस सेनिकालकर
,
संकुलभवनमेंडलवारहाथा तबमैंनेकहाकि प्राथमिकशाला

केशिक्षकप्रकाशतिग्गाकोबतायाकि आपकोभीकूपननहीं
,
मिलाहै औरकिशोरगुप्तासंकुलभवनमेंडलवारहाहै।
.
जबकि नियमहैकि प्राथमिकशालाकाप्राथ शालामेएवं
. .
माध्य शालाकामाध्य शालामेंजमाकियाजानाचाहिए।ऐसे

मेंघपलाहोसकताहैऔरहमलोगभ्रष्टाचारकेआरोपमेफस

जायेंगे।तबमैंकिशोरगुप्ताकेपासजाकरबोलाकि आपऐसा
;
गलतकामकैसेकरसकतेहैं तबमुझेकिशोरगुप्तानेकहा
1 2
(xxxxx) , , (xxxxx) , ,
उरांवसाले तुमचोरहो तुमचोरीकरते
-
होकि बातकरतेहुएमेरेसाथधक्का मुक्कीकरनेलगाऔर
, -
मुझेजमीनमेपटकदिया तबवहाँलड़ाई झगड़ाहोतेदेखवहाँ

परउपस्थि तरसोइया देवप्रसादयादवएवंशिक्षकझेमूराम
-
बनवासी तत्कालआयेऔरबीच बचावकिये।उसकेबाद

किशोरगुप्तानेमुझेसबकेसामनेधमकीदियाकि मैंतेरानौकरी
, ,
खाजाऊँगा तेराजिन्दगीबर्बादकरदूंगा अगरतुममुझेनहीं
,
पहचानतेहो अबमैंतुम्हेंअपनापॉवरदिखाताहूँकि धमकी
1 (obscene word)
2 (obscene word)

19

देकरचलागया।बादमेंजानकारीहुईकि किशोरगुप्तामुझेझूठे
”
प्रकरणमेंफंसादियाहै।
21. The appellant Vinay Kujur himself has examined as DW-1. He stated
that, he has not committed any offence with Kishore Kumar Gupta
and Anita Jaiswal. On 30.05.2013, when he was posted as
headmaster at Datunpani Primary School, Jhemuram Banwasi was
posted as headmaster and Kishore Gupta and Anita Jaiswal were
posted as Teacher (Panchayat). Both of them had not regularly
appeared in their duty, but signed the attendance register of each
other. When he posted there, he raised objection in their conduct.
Before his posting there, Kishore Gupta was in possession of cash
book and passbook of the school and misusing the contingency fund
of the school. Jhemuram Banwasi also stated him that the cash book
and passbook are in possession of Kishore Gupta and on his
instance, he made signature in the vouchers. On 13.12.2013, he took
charge of headmaster from Jhemuram Banwasi and then Kishore
Gupta handed over the cash book and passbook to him, but he
retained the seal of secretary and treasurer with him. When he asked
to handover the seal, he answered that without his permission he
would not be able to withdraw the amount. At that time, the
scholarship for the year 2012-13 was not disbursed and on
14.03.2014, when he was disbursing the scholarship to the students,
Kishore Gupta asked him that he will disburse the scholarship for the
year 2012-13 because it relates to his tenure. Instead of handing
over him, he himself disbursed the scholarship to the students with
the help of Jhemuram Banwasi. Thereafter, Kishore Gupta made a

20
false complaint before DEO regarding non-disbursement of the
scholarship.
* He further stated that on 20.09.2014, another Panchayat
Teacher came to his school, with whom Kishore Gupta raised quarrel
and Kishore Gupta lodged a false complaint against him also, in
which the police came to school on 30.09.2014 for recording
statements and at that time, Kishore Gupta pressurized him to given
statement in his favour, but he disclosed the actual incident. On
05.01.2015, there was cluster meeting and on that day, the mid-day
meal coupons were distributed. Kishore Gupta, though obtained his
acknowledgment,but has not given him the coupon and despite his
ask, he did not give him the coupon. On 10.01.2015, he kept the mid-
day meal rice to the cluster building, which was informed by him to
Prakash Tigga and when he had not taken any interest, he himself
had gone there and then Kishore Gupta and Anita Jaiswal started
abusing him and committed marpeet with him. The witnesses
Jhemuram and Devprasad intervened. When he coming out from the
cluster building, Kishore Gupta assaulted him by kick and fists. When
he hold his leg to save himself, he fell down and then he came out
from the building. Number of beneficiaries of PDS were there and
then Kishore Gupta started shouting that he assaulted him. Kishore
Gupta also called his brothers and the villagers advised him to leave
the place, otherwise his family members would quarrel with him and
then he left the place. Subsequently, he came to know that Kishore
Gupta lodged a false report against him.

21
* On 11.01.2015, he also lodged the report to police out-post
Pandrapath against Kishore Gupta. On 12.01.2015, he made a
complaint to DEO, but his complaint has not been taken care. The
SDOP Bagicha has recorded the statements of the witnesses, but
said statements have also been suppressed and then he made a
complaint to Superintendent of Police, Jashpur, but no statement of
his witnesses has been recorded. He get exhibited the complaint
made by him and other villagers against Kishore Gupta, which are
exhibit D-2 to D-11. In cross-examination, he admitted that when he
had taken charge of headmaster and came to know that all the works
of headmaster is being done by Kishore Gupta in place of Jhemuram.
He has not made any complaint to the higher authorities. He
subsequently explained that he came to know about the said fact on
06.12.2013, when the charge was handed over to him by Jhemuram
Banwasi. He denied that the cluster coordinator was having financial
power of the school. He voluntarily stated that the financial power of
the school was with the headmaster. He also admitted that before
10.01.2015, he has not made any complaint about any conduct of
Kishore Gupta or Anita Jaiswal and he stated that the other teachers
have made complaint against them. At the time when the complaint
(exhibit D-8) was made to Block Officer, he was posted at Middle
School, Datunpani. He also denied the quarrel with Anita Jaiswal on
10.01.2015 regarding teacher’s diary and denied the incident that he
assaulted the complainant Kishore Gupta.
DW-2, Jhemuram Banwasi, who was the ex-headmaster of the
22.
school has stated in his evidence that on 10.01.2015, at about 2:00-

22
2:30 p.m. the mid-day meal rice was taken from PDS shop, which
was storing in the cluster building by Kishore Gupta. At that time, the
appellant Vinay Kujur objected as to why it was keeping in cluster
building instead of school building and then scuffling occurred
between them and he and cook Devprasad Yadav intervened. As ans
when, Vinay Kujur coming out from the room, Kishore Gupta kicked
him from backside and then Vinay Kujur caught his leg and then
Kishore Gupta fell on the floor. The persons who present there, get
them separated. At that time, Kishore Gupta abusing Vinay Kujur with
the name of his caste and filthy language. In cross-examination, he
stated that he has not made any complaint to his senior officer about
keeping of the cash book and passbook of the school with him. It was
Kishore Gupta, who assaulted Vinay Kujur and his wife Anita Jaiswal
also assaulted him on the instance of Kishore Gupta.
DW-3, Devprasad Yadav was the cook in the school. He stated that
23.
on 10.01.2015, at about 2:00-2:30 p.m. Kishore asked him to store
the mid-day meal rice at cluster building and when he was keeping
the rice there, Vinay Kujur came to him and raised objection and
asked to store it in the school building. At that time, Kishore Gupta
caught hold Vinay Kujur and asked his wife Anita Jaiswal to beat him
and then she slapped him twice. As and when, Vinay Kujur coming
out from the building, Kishore Gupta kicked him from his backside
and when Vinay Kujur caught his leg, Kishore Gupta fell down and
then other persons came there.

23
* In cross-examination, he denied that on 10.01.2015, there was
a quarrel between Anita Jaiswal and Vinay Kujur. During
investigation, he disclosed before the police that Kishore Gupta
raised quarrel with Vinay Kujur. His statement was recorded by the
SDOP.
From the evidence of defence witnesses, it transpires that the
24.
incident was occurred on 10.01.2015, the complainant Kishore Gupta
lodged report on the same day i.e. on 10.01.2015, but the appellant
Vinay Kujur made his complaint on 11.01.2015 (exhibit D-2), which
also supported by the rojnamcha dated 11.01.2015 (exhibit D-3). The
documents (exhibit D-4, D-5 and D-6) are dated 14.07.2015, which
are the complaints made to the higher authorities, which is after
about 6 months from the alleged date of incident. Although the
appellant has also filed the panchnama (exhibit D-7) prepared on
10.01.2015, in which the signatures of villagers are there, but none of
the villagers have been examined by the appellant to prove the
same. Likewise, the complaint made to the Block Officer. From the
documents (exhibit D-8 and D-9) it also transpires that it was
prepared after the incident, which are the complaint made to the
Block Officer. DW-2/Jhemuram Banwasi admitted in his evidence that
prior to the incident, he had not made any complaint to the conduct of
Kishore Gupta or Anita Jaiswal, therefore, the defence taken by the
appellant is not sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution’s case,
particularly when the alleged incident is supported by the
eyewitnesses (PW-4 Anita Jaiswal, PW-6 Chhatrapati Yadav and
PW-7 Rajkumar).

24
Upon consideration of the entire evidence available on record, this
25.
Court finds that the prosecution has established the presence of the
appellant at the place of occurrence and his involvement in the
incident dated 10.01.2015. The testimony of the complainant Kishore
Kumar Gupta (PW-3) is consistent on the material particulars
regarding the assault committed by the appellant. His testimony finds
corroboration from the evidence of Anita Jaiswal (PW-4), Chhatrapati
Yadav (PW-6) and Rajkumar (PW-7), who have supported the
prosecution case regarding the scuffle and assault upon the
complainant. Although PW-5 Akash Ram has not fully supported the
prosecution case, his testimony establishes that a quarrel had taken
place between the appellant and the complainant and that the
complainant was suffering from injuries immediately thereafter. The
minor discrepancies and omissions elicited during cross-examination
do not go to the root of the prosecution case so as to render the
otherwise cogent and consistent testimony of the material witnesses
unreliable.
The ocular evidence is further corroborated by the medical evidence
26.
on record. PW-2 Dr. Mithilesh Minj, upon examination of the
complainant, found swelling and tenderness over the left mid-
clavicular region and other injuries on his body. The subsequent X-
ray examination confirmed a fracture of the left clavicle bone, which
was opined to be grievous in nature. The medical evidence,
therefore, lends substantial assurance to the prosecution version
regarding the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the

25
complainant. Further, fracture of left clavicular bone comes under the
definition of grievous injuries, as provided under Section 116(g) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 320 clause seventhly of the
IPC). The recovery of the piece of stone and the medical opinion that
the same could have caused the fracture further corroborate the
prosecution case. Merely because the investigating officer seized the
torn register after a considerable lapse of time, the otherwise reliable
and corroborated evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be
discarded. The delay in recording the statement of the complainant
under Section 161 of the CrPC, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, is also not sufficient to discredit his testimony, particularly when
the written complaint was lodged on the date of the incident itself.
The defence of the appellant that the complainant and his wife
27.
assaulted him and that the present case arose out of a dispute
concerning the distribution of mid-day meal coupons and storage of
rice has also been duly considered. The documents produced by the
defence indicate that the appellant made a complaint to the police on
11.01.2015, i.e., on the day following the incident; however, the
existence of a prior dispute between the parties, by itself, does not
establish that the complainant has falsely implicated the appellant.
The defence witnesses DW-2 Jhemuram Banwasi and DW-3
Devprasad Yadav have supported the appellant's version regarding
the circumstances leading to the altercation, but their testimony does
not satisfactorily displace the consistent evidence of the prosecution
witnesses regarding the assault and the grievous injury sustained by
the complainant. The appellant's contention that he has been

26
acquitted of the offences under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 186 and
426 of the IPC is also of no assistance to him, as each offence has
distinct ingredients and the acquittal in respect of certain charges
does not, by itself, preclude conviction under Section 333 of the IPC
when its essential ingredients are otherwise established by reliable
evidence.
It is established from the evidence on record that the complainant
28.
was discharging his duties as a Cluster Coordinator at the relevant
time and was, therefore, a public servant within the meaning of
Section 21 of the IPC. The evidence of the complainant, duly
corroborated by the material eyewitnesses and the medical evidence,
establishes that the appellant voluntarily caused grievous hurt to him
while he was discharging his official duties. The circumstances
surrounding the incident, including the nature of the assault and the
official context in which it occurred, sufficiently establish the requisite
connection between the grievous hurt caused and the complainant's
public duty. Upon an overall appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved the charge
under Section 333 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Consequently, this Court finds no perversity, illegality or material
misappreciation of evidence in the findings recorded by the learned
trial Court warranting interference in the present appeal. The
conviction of the appellant under Section 333 of the IPC is, therefore,
affirmed.

27
So far as the question of sentence is concerned, it is true that the
29.
offence under Section 333 of the IPC is serious in nature, as it
involves voluntarily causing grievous hurt to a public servant while
discharging his official duties, and the sentence imposed must reflect
the gravity of the offence. However, while determining the appropriate
sentence, the Court is also required to take into consideration the
attending circumstances of the case and the mitigating factors
relating to the appellant. In the present case, the incident occurred on
10.01.2015, and considerable time has elapsed since then. The
appellant is presently aged about 60 years and has retired from
service. The fact that he is now a retired person having family
responsibilities, coupled with the long passage of time since the
occurrence, deserves consideration while determining the quantum
of substantive sentence. It is also relevant that Section 333 of the
IPC does not prescribe any minimum term of imprisonment, leaving
the Court with discretion to impose an appropriate sentence within
the statutory limits. In Razia Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh ,
(2023) 8 SCC 592, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while maintaining the
conviction under Section 333 of the IPC, considered the mitigating
circumstances cumulatively and reduced the substantive sentence.
The principles laid down therein are relevant while considering the
question of sentence in the present case.
Having regard to the cumulative effect of the aforesaid mitigating
30.
circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends
of justice would be served by reducing the substantive sentence

28
imposed upon the appellant, while maintaining his conviction. At the
same time, the seriousness of the offence and the fact that the
complainant sustained a fracture while discharging his official duties
cannot be overlooked. Balancing the gravity of the offence against
the appellant's age, retirement from service, family responsibilities
and the considerable lapse of time since the incident, this Court finds
that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years imposed
by the learned trial Court is liable to be modified.
Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of the appellant for the
31.
offence punishable under Section 333 of the IPC, the sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 2000/- is
modified/altered to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months with fine of
Rs. 20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo one
month further rigorous imprisonment. The fine amount, which has
been paid by the appellant, if any, shall be adjusted in the total fine
amount awarded by this Court. The fine amount of Rs. 20,000/-, so
deposited by the appellant, shall be paid to the complainant Kishore
Kumar Gupta (PW-3) as compensation, as provided under Section
395 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The appeal is
partly allowed .
The appellant is reported to be on bail. He shall be taken into custody
32.
to serve the sentence as awarded by this Court. The appellant is
directed to surrender before the concerned trial Court within a period
of 04 weeks from today to serve the sentence imposed upon him by

29
this Court, failing which the trial Court shall take him into custody for
execution of the sentence.
Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to
33.
the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and
compliance.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved