Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of M.P. vs Chootelal Singh And Ors on 27 June, 2012
Author: Tarun Kumar Kaushal
Bench: Tarun Kumar Kaushal
1
Cr.A. No.886 of 1997
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
BEFORE : TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL, J.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 886 OF 1997
APPELLANT: The State of M.P.
Versus
RESPONDENTS: 1. Chhotelal Singh,
S/o Rudra Pratap Singh,
aged 48 years,
R/o Rampur Mudwar
2. Narendra Man Singh,
S/o Rudra Pratap Singh,
aged 47 years,
R/o Rampur
3. Mithlesh Pratap Singh,
S/o Narendra Man Singh,
aged 22 years,
R/o Rampur
All resident of Gram Rampur Mudwar,
P.S Amarpatan, District- Satna (M.P)
******************************************************************
For Appellant : Shri R.S. Shukla, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondents : Shri D.S Chouhan, Advocate.
******************************************************************
JUDGMENT
27/06/2012 This appeal has been preferred under section 378 (1)/ (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 by the State appellant against the judgment dated 28/11/1996 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class Amarpatan, District-Satna in regular Criminal Case No. 345/1990, acquitting the respondents/accused persons of the charge under section 325 and 323/34 IPC.
2. During pendency of this appeal, the respondent no.4 Jay Pratap Singh expired and vide order dated 01/05/2012 name of the respondent no.4 was deleted from the cause title as appeal stood abated against him.
2 Cr.A. No.886 of 19973. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 30/03/1989 some forest officers have conducted search and seizure proceedings in the house of respondent Jay Pratap Singh. Respondents had a doubt that this proceeding has been initiated at the instance of Tilak Raj, Injured (PW-2). Before the forest officers could complete the proceedings, the respondents assaulted Tilak Raj (PW-2) with lathi and stones while he was sitting in a neighbouring house. Ramraj Singh (PW-1) and Uma Shankar Shrivastava, Deputy Ranger Forest (PW-14) tried to prevent the fight, but Tilak had already sustained injuries on his person.
4. Tilak Raj (PW-2) injured reached to Hospital Satna for treatment. Dr. A. Siddhiqui ( PW-11) vide MLC report Ex.P-6 found following injuries on his person:-
(1) Lacerated wound 1/2" X 1/4" on nose; (2) Lacerated wound 2" X1/2" X1/4" on right eye brow; (3) Lacerated wound 3" X1/2" X1/4" on right side of chest; (4) Contusion 2"X2" on left side of chest; (5) Abrasion on left forearm.
5. Dr. A.K. Saraf (PW-9) found fracture of 6th and 7th ribs on left side of the chest and prepared X-ray report Ex.P-5. Tilak Raj injured (PW-2) was admitted in the hospital for treatment. The fact of admission of injured PW-2 in hospital was informed to police and police recorded this information in Roznamcha Ex.P-10 on the same day. However, B.R. Bagri, SHO, Satna (PW-12) registered a case in respect of the aforesaid incident on 23/04/1989 at Ex.P-9.
6. After completing the investigation, police submitted a charge sheet against the respondents under section 325 and 323/34 IPC. They abjured guilt. To substantiate case of the prosecution, statements of Ramraj Singh (PW-1), Tilak Raj Singh, Injured (PW-
2), Ashok Kumar (PW-3), Sukhlal (PW-4), Kunjilal (PW-5), Daddula (PW-6), Ganpat (PW-7), Vijay Kumar (PW-8), Dr. A.K. Saraf (PW-9), Ramkumar Vishwakarma (PW-10), Dr. A. Siddhiqui (PW-11), B.R. Bagri, SHO (PW-12), Laxman Prasad, Beat Guard Forest (PW-13), 3 Cr.A. No.886 of 1997 Uma Shankar Shrivastava, Deputy Ranger Forest (PW-14) and Shrikant Dwivedi (PW-15) were recorded. Trial Court has not correctly numbered the witnesses Sukhlal (PW-4), Kunjilal (PW-5), Daddula (PW-6) and Ganpat (PW-7). However, it appears to be a clerical typographical mistake and best to be ignored. Defence of the respondents was that of false implication. According to them, Tilak Raj (PW-2) had good connections with Deputy Collector and under his undue influence this false case has been registered against them.
7. Trial Court has appreciated aforesaid evidence and found the case of prosecution to be doubtful and extended benefit of doubt to the respondents and acquitted them of the charges under section 325 and 323 IPC.
8. Challenging the aforesaid findings of the trial Court, State has preferred this appeal on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. Trial Court has already held that injured sustained grievous injuries on his person in the incident. Evidence of injured has been duly corroborated by evidence of other witnesses and benefit of doubt has been wrongly extended to the respondents. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the finding of acquittal and opposed this appeal.
9. In view of the evidence of Dr. A. Siddhiqui (PW-11), Dr. A.K. Saraf (PW-9) and MLC report Ex.P-6 and X-ray report Ex.P-5. It remains no longer disputed that Tilak Raj (PW-2) sustained grievous injuries, fracture of ribs and some simple injuries on his person in the incident.
10. To ascertain the fact whether these injuries were caused by respondents, evidence of Tilak Raj, Injured (PW-2) is important and crucial. Tilak Raj (PW-2) stated that respondent Jay Prakash Singh assaulted him with lathi on his head but somehow sustained injuries on his hand as he lifted his hands to protect his head. For remaining respondents only vague allegations are narrated by him.
4 Cr.A. No.886 of 199711. Ramraj Singh (PW-1) stated that he saw Tilak Raj (PW-2) and respondent no.2 Narendra grappling with each other and there had been a general fight between all members of the crowd causing injuries to each other.
12. Uma Shankar Shrivastava (PW-14) has stated that as soon as officials of forest department completed the proceedings, respondents started beating Tilak Raj (PW-2) and both parties assaulted each other.
13. In view of the aforesaid oral evidence regarding origin of incident, it has become pertinent that nobody lodged FIR in the matter and B.R. Bagri, SHO (PW-12) has registered a case on 22/04/1989 i.e after 22 days of the incident against the respondents. For 23 days why PW-2 did not lodge FIR and why B.R. Bagri, SHO (PW-12) did not register report has not been explained by any of them. Trial Court has emphasized on this fact as he did not choose to lodge FIR of the incident, hence, his statement given in the court appeared to be doubtful.
14. True it may be that injured PW-2 sustained as many as 6 injuries including fracture of the ribs, but who caused the injuries and how the quarrel started was not narrated by him to any body for 22 days. On the date of incident i.e 30/03/1989, though at Police Station Roznamcha Ex.P-10 was recorded shown to have received information from hospital regarding admission of PW-2 in the hospital in the injured condition, but nothing has come on record of the police and hospital both which can show it to be a incident of causing injuries to him by the respondents.
15. It is settled position of law that while dealing with the matters of acquittal given by trial court, the appellate court should be slow to interfere in the matter unless, the finding of acquittal are totally perverse, wrong and unsustainable. In my opinion, this gap of 23 days in registration of the case and not lodging of FIR by injured without any explanation are the main lapses in the case of prosecution.
5 Cr.A. No.886 of 199716. In the aforesaid back drop, view taken by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or absurd rather it can also be possible view in the matter. Possibility of exaggeration and false implication cannot be ruled out. Acquittal seems to be probable and proper and deserves to be affirmed.
17. As discussed above, I see no force in the appeal. Appeal deserve to be and hereby dismissed.
(Tarun Kumar Kaushal) Judge tarun/