Madhya Pradesh High Court
Diwan Singh & Anr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May, 2012
Author: A.K. Shrivastava
Bench: A.K. Shrivastava
CRA No. 50/2000
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH:
Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 50/2000
.........Appellants: 1. Deevan Singh s/o Angad Singh,
2. Angad Singh s/o Rajdhar Ghoshi,
Both R/o village Dadora, P.S. Bamnora,
Distt. Chhatarpur M.P.
Versus
.......Respondent : State of Madhya Pradesh through Police
Station Bamnora, Distt. Chhatarpur M.P.
---------------------------------------------
Shri Pranay Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ashok Chourasiya, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/
State.
---------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 9th day of May, 2012) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.12.1999 passed by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No.240/1997 convicting the appellants under Section 332 IPC and CRA No. 50/2000 2 thereby sentencing him to suffer imprisonment of 1 year's R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- each; in default of payment of fine further R.I. of three months, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that the complainant, Ramdas, who is a public servant and at the relevant point of time was serving on the post of Assistant Lineman in the M.P. Electricity Board went to disconnect the electric connection which was taken illegally by the appellants. When he was on duty and was disconnecting the illegal electric connection it is said that the appellants caused injuries to him by lathi and in one lathi the iron object was embedded. A report was lodged in the police station and case was registered under Sections 353, 333, 332, 186, 294, 323 and 506 Later Part IPC.
3. After the investigation was over, a charge-sheet was submitted in the committal Court which committed the case to the Court of Session and from where it was received by the Trial Court for trial.
4. Learned Trial Judge on the basis of the allegations made in the charge-sheet framed the charge punishable under Section 333 IPC which the appellants denied and requested for the trial.
CRA No. 50/20003
5. In order to bring home the charge the prosecution examined its witnesses. The defence of the appellants is of false implication and same defence they set forth in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, in support of their defence they did not choose to examine any witness.
6. Learned Trial Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record came to hold that the appellants have committed the offence only under Section 332 IPC by voluntarily causing hurt to the public servant who was on duty as a result of which convicted them and passed the sentence which I have mentioned hereinabove.
7. In this manner this appeal has been filed by the appellants assailing their judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
8. The contention of Shri Pranay Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants is that looking to the testimony of injured Ramdas (PW-4) it cannot be said that the offence has been proved against him because in cross-examination the injured has not at all supported the case of the prosecution. It has also been put forth by him that according to the injured, the appellants were carrying lathi and because there is no injury of the lathi the benefit of doubt should be extended to them. An alternative submission in respect of CRA No. 50/2000 4 taking leniency in passing the jail sentence has also been put forth by learned counsel.
9. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that cogent reasons have been assigned by learned Trial Court convicting the appellants and therefore, this appeal be dismissed.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed in part.
11. So far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that in cross-examination the injured Ramdas (PW-4) has not at all supported the case of the prosecution is concerned, this contention cannot be accepted because the examination-in- chief of the injured was recorded on 21.12.1998 and no cross- examination was made. Later on, an application was filed on behalf of the accused and the complainant/injured was directed to appear for cross-examination. On 5.11.1999 the injured was cross- examined by the defence counsel and if he has totally reconciled from the earlier statement given by him in his examination-in-chief one year ago, according to me, it can be inferred that he has been win over by the accused and in that situation there can be no sanctity of his testimony in the cross-examination. If the injured has not identified the appellants in cross-examination which took place CRA No. 50/2000 5 after near about one year, no benefit can be extended to the appellants. In this regard, the decision of Supreme Court, Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1853 may be taken into account.
12. So far as another argument of learned counsel for the appellants in regard to using of sharp edged weapon although according to the prosecution appellants inflicted lathi blows is concerned, according to me this argument also cannot be accepted because it has been specifically stated by the injured that in the lathi of the accused Angad Singh, the iron was embedded. Hence, according to me, it cannot be said that the incised wound will not come. Apart from this, Dr. S.K. Bhadora (PW-6) has found contusions, lacerated wound and also the incised wounds mentioned in his MLC report (Ex.P-8). Thus, the evidence of injured is also corroborated by medical evidence.
13. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the learned Trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellants under Section 332 IPC. This offence is hereby affirmed.
14. After going through the file learned counsel for the parties submit that the appellants have already suffered jail sentence of near about 50 days. The incident occurred near about 14 years ago and the appellants were on bail, hence, it would not be CRA No. 50/2000 6 appropriate to send them behind the bars again. Looking to the period of custody which the appellants have undergone, they are hereby released for that period. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
15. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.
(A.K. Shrivastava) Judge 09-05-2012.
S/