Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. However, the return filed by the respondent no. 5 is also important. In para 2 of the return, the respondent no. 5 has claimed that some villagers had staged Chhaka Jam and accordingly, the Petitioner reached on the spot, for getting the vehicles released. Therefore, the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52292 contention of the Petitioner, that he went to spot in the capacity of in- charge of the Company is supported by respondent no.5. When the respondent no. 10 reached on the spot, the petitioner started using abusive language. The Petitioner was in inebriated condition. The Petitioner also pushed the respondent no. 10. A scuffle took place and therefore, the Petitioner was taken to police station and FIR was lodged against him. When the Petitioner was taken to Police Station, then his brother namely Malkhan and other family members of Petitioner also reached there and created various hindrances. The brother of the Petitioner is a terminated Police Officer. The Petitioner had refused to undergo the Medical Examination.

23. As already pointed out, the video clipping relied upon by the respondent no. 5 is not complete and it starts from the stage where the petitioner was already having hot talk with the respondent no.10.

24. Now the only question for consideration is that what prompted the petitioner to use abusive language against the Respondent No. 10?

25. As already stated by respondent no. 5, the Petitioner had gone to the spot for release of the vehicles whereas the Chaka Jam was staged NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52292 by Villagers. The respondent no. 10 was also sent to control the Chakka Jam. Thus, it is clear that the purpose of Petitioner as well as of Respondent no. 10 for reaching to the spot was same and they had no conflicting interests. Thus, it is clear that there was otherwise, no reason for the Petitioner to use abusive language against the respondent no.10.

26. This Court has already held that the Video Clipping relied upon by the respondent no. 5 is not complete and it doesnot contain the video clipping of the incident which immediately took place prior to the use of abusive language by Petitioner.

27. As already held that since, purpose of Petitioner and the respondent no. 10 to reach to the spot was the same, therefore, it is clear that respondent no. 10 must have done something which annoyed the Petitioner. It is the case of the Petitioner that since, respondent no. 10 demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 5000/-, therefore, he used abusive language against respondent no. 10. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion, that it was the Respondent no. 10 who created an unwarranted situation which led to the entire incident.

Whether the respondent no. 10 had acted in exercise of his right of private defence or he retaliated?

28. In the previous paragraph, this Court has already reached to a conclusion, that facts and circumstances of the case indicates, that in fact it was the respondent no. 10 who provoked the petitioner to use abusive language.

29. If the facts of this case are considered, then it is clear that there was some incident of blockage of road by the villagers. As per the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52292 Petitioner as well as according to the respondent no. 5, the petitioner went to the spot with an intention to get the vehicles released. Therefore, it is clear that presence of the petitioner on the spot was not for committing any offence, but it was for the protection of interest of his employer being the in-charge. As per the whatsapp video relied upon by the respondent no. 5 himself, petitioner was also there and he had some hot-talk with respondent No.10. Some abusive language was also used by the petitioner and petitioner also pushed the respondent No.10. Since, this Court has already come to a conclusion that it was the respondent no. 10 who created the unwarranted situation, therefore, prima facie it is held that use of abusive language and push the petitioner was on account of sudden and grave provocation by the respondent no.10. Thereafter the manner in which respondent No.10 had beaten the petitioner including throwing him on ground and kicking on his head, also justifies the stand of the Petitioner, that since, the demand of illegal gratification raised by the respondent no.10 was not fulfilled, therefore, he was assaulted. Thus, it is clear that excessive and brutal attack by the respondent no. 10 on the petitioner is also indicative of fact, that respondent no. 10 might be aggrieved. In other words, the act of the respondent no. 10 appears to be in retaliation and such an act cannot be permitted.