Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Nageena Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 February, 2023
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
Bench: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 20 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 617 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
SMT.NAGEENA RATHORE S/O SHRI RAJESH RATHORE,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE
RESIDENT OF WARD NO 13 KASWA DABOH, DISTRICT
BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SUSHIL GOSWAMI- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE
STATION DABOH, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( SHRI C. P. SINGH- LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENT-
STATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
The present criminal appeal under Section 341 of CrPC has been preferred by appellant challenging the order dated 14-03-2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar, District Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 157 of 2012 for directing trial of appellant under Section 340 of CrPC for committing offence under Sections 193, 211 of IPC.
Necessary facts for disposal of present appeal in short are that on 22-03- 2012 at around 03:45 in the noon, appellant Smt. Nagina Rathore lodged a report at Police Station Daboh alleging therein that when she went to her father-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 2/20/2023 6:53:09 PM 2in-law Nathuram to pay school fees of her children, he started abusing her. Thereafter, he went inside the shop and brought an axe with him. Then, two more persons, namely, Awadhesh and Hariom also came there and started abusing her. Her father-in-law Nathuram assaulted on her shoulder by means of axe. Hariom gave her kick blows due to which she suffered injury on her forehead. It is further alleged that her father-in-law Nathuram also assaulted on her back and Awadhesh assaulted her by means of sickle on her right hand and blood started oozing out. At that time, Tikku Kaurav of the locality and father Mohan Singh came there and saved her. Her father-in-law Nathuram threatened her with dire consequences if she demands money again. On her report, Crime No.33 of 2012 for offence under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506-B read with Section 34 of IPC was registered. Thereafter, on the basis of medical report, offence under Section 325, 326, 307 of IPC was enhanced. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and case was committed to Sessions Court vide Crime No. 304 of 2012.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has committed an error of law in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 193, 211 of IPC. He further submits that the learned trial Court has acted against the factual position of report in holding that the appellant has given a false statement whereas it is apparent from the record that the report was lodged by the appellant herself wherein after investigation challan was filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the trial Court has committed an error in exercising power under Section 340 of CrPC against the appellant on the basis of contradiction and omission occurred in her statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, which is against the law. The trial Court has not taken Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 2/20/2023 6:53:09 PM 3 into consideration the preliminary investigation done in the matter and without holding proper enquiry, has wrongly exercised power under Section 340 of CrPC against the appellant by the impugned order. Therefore, the order passed by trial Court is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed at the threshold. P provisions of Section 340 of CrPC are meant for implicating a person for fabricating documents whereas the case at hand no document was ever fabricated by the appellant. Therefore, conviction of appellant is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the appellant deserves to be acquitted.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order stating that the order passed by the Trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and no interference is warranted. The appellant has stated against the record and facts in her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of record, it is evident that impugned FIR was lodged by the appellant herself against her father-in-law Nathuram and two other persons, namely, Awadhesh and Hariom who are her brothers-in-law. Therefore, it is evident that the appellant had lodged the report knowingfully well the accused persons whereas she has stated in her statement under Section 164 of CrPC that unknown three persons entered in her house and scuffled with her and caused injuries to her. It is also against documentary evidence. This shows that the appellant has given false statement before the Court itself under Section 164 of CrPC. In the matter after investigation charge sheet was also filed and the contents of FIR was corroborated by her in her statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC yet she has stated against her statement given under Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 2/20/2023 6:53:09 PM 4 Section 161 of CrPC and in the FIR. Therefore, she has rightly been proposed for prosecution under Section 340 of CrPC and she has to be tried for commission of offence under Sections 193, 211 of IPC where offence would be led by the trial Court and the truth will be come out thereafter only. Therefore, the trial Court has not committed any error in exercising power under Section 340 of CrPC against the appellant for her trial under Sections 193, 211 of IPC.
The criminal appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE MKB Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 2/20/2023 6:53:09 PM