Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Retired Headmaster’s Conviction For Fracturing Cluster Coordinator’s Collarbone, Cuts 3-Year Term To 6 Months

On 10 January 2015, a dispute arose at a school cluster office between the appellant, a headmaster, and Kishore Kumar Gupta, the Cluster Coordinator.

Gupta alleged that the appellant assaulted him with a stone while he was performing his official duties, causing a fracture of his left clavicle.

The appellant maintained that the incident arose from a dispute over mid-day-meal coupons and the storage of rice, and that Gupta had initiated the physical altercation.

The trial court acquitted the appellant of offences under Sections 294, 506 Part II, 186 and 426 IPC, but convicted him under Section 333 IPC and sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000.

The appellant appealed under Section 374(2) CrPC.

Section 333 IPC criminalises voluntarily causing grievous hurt to a public servant in the discharge of duty, with intent to prevent or deter the performance of that duty, or in consequence of an act done or attempted in lawful discharge of duty.

The Court treated Gupta as a public servant under Section 21 IPC and relied on the definition of grievous hurt in Section 320, clause seventhly, IPC; it also referred to the corresponding provision, Section 116(g), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In sentencing, the Court considered Razia Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 8 SCC 592, as authority for reducing the substantive sentence under Section 333 IPC after considering mitigating circumstances cumulatively.

The Court found Gupta’s account of the assault materially consistent and corroborated by Anita Jaiswal, Chhatrapati Yadav and Rajkumar, as well as by the medical evidence confirming a clavicle fracture.

It considered the hostile witness’s evidence, the delay in recording Gupta’s Section 161 CrPC statement, and the defence evidence, but held that these matters did not displace the prosecution case.

The Court further held that the appellant’s acquittal on other charges did not bar conviction under Section 333 IPC because that offence had distinct ingredients.

The official context of the incident and the evidence that Gupta was performing his duties established the necessary connection between the grievous hurt and his public duty.

On sentence, the Court weighed the seriousness of the offence against the passage of time, the appellant’s age, retirement and family responsibilities, and concluded that a reduced custodial term with an increased fine was appropriate.

In default of payment, the appellant was to undergo one month’s further rigorous imprisonment.

The fine was directed to be paid to Gupta as compensation under Section 395 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with any fine already paid to be adjusted.

The appellant was directed to surrender within four weeks.