Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ayuub Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 August, 2015
M.Cr.C.No.15815/2014
- 1 -
M.Cr.C.No.15815/2014
3.8.2015 Shri R.S.Patel, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the
State/respondent No.1.
Heard on admission.
The applicant has preferred the present leave application against the judgment dated 27.6.2014 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in S.T.No.250/2013, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of offence under Sections 294, 308/149 of IPC.
The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 4.3.2011 at about 4-5 p.m., the respondent No.9 Ismil and respondent No.10 Isril assaulted Tahir Mansoori, brother of the complainant and a case was registered at 8 p.m. The accused persons went to assault the complainant and others. However, that matter was subsided. The appellant Ayuub Khan went to the Police Station Khargapur and after lodging the report, when he was coming out of the police sation, the respondents assaulted him by kicks and fists. Thereafter, they held the applicant and threw him in the well. The police and some villagers rescued the applicant and he was took out from the well. He sustained injuries in his leg, chest and shoulder. He found that Shahjad was also M.Cr.C.No.15815/2014
- 2 -
unconscious. Thereafter, a written report was given to the police station but, no action was taken and therefore, a private complaint was filed. Since the counter case was triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the present complaint was also sent to the Sessions Court for trial.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that a counter case was registered against the applicant and other persons and therefore, it was possible that he would have lodged a false FIR against the respondents. Actually the FIR, Ex.P/3 is proved by the applicant through his witness Shakir Ali (P.W.3), in which there is no intimation given that the applicant was thrown in the well. Such intimation was given in the report, Ex.P/1. It was alleged that such report was prepared on 4.3.2011. However, it would be apparent that document, Ex.P/1 is a carbon copy of the FIR and entire text of that FIR is written with help of carbon but, date of that FIR has been written by ink pen. Again a typed report, Ex.P/2 was lodged on 10.3.2011, in which it was mentioned that the applicant lodged an FIR on 6.3.2011 and no action was taken against the respondents. Under such circumstances, it would M.Cr.C.No.15815/2014
- 3 -
be apparent that the FIR, Ex.P/1 was given to the Police station on 6.3.2011 i.e. with delay of 2 days and over writing was done on the date mentioned on the document, Ex.P/1 to show that it was given on 4.3.2011. If the FIR was given on 4.3.2011 then, such description should have been given in the second FIR, Ex.P/2. When such an incident took place with the applicant and he did not take care to lodge the FIR for 2 days and no doctor was examined before the trial Court to prove that the applicant sustained any injury, therefore, testimony of the complainant and his witnesses were rightly disbelieved by the trial Court. Due to counter case, a false FIR has been lodged by the applicant against the respondents after 2 days of the incident.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, there is no reason to grant leave to appeal in the present case. Consequently, present application for grant of leave to appeal filed by the applicant Ayuub Khan is hereby dismissed at motion stage.
Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra