Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P. vs Balram Singh on 14 May, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10597
1 CRA-212-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 14 th OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 212 of 2007
STATE OF M.P.
Versus
BALRAM SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nirmal Sharma - PP for the appellant/State.
None for the respondents.
Reserved on : 08.05.2025.
Delivered on 14.05.2025.
JUDGMENT.
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "CrPC") after obtaining leave to appeal under section 378(4) of Cr.P.C vide order dated 02.03.2007 passed in in M.Cr.C.No.5330 of 2006 by this court against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 03.08.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No.104 of 2004 whereby, the respondents/accused persons have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 436 or 436 read with Section 34, 506 Part II of Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC").
2. As per prosecution story, on 18.03.1999 complainant Laljit Singh (PW2) lodged an FIR at PS Raun Distt. Bhind stating that at about 9 PM when he was returning to his home, he saw that his Granary (Khaliyan) was under
fire. He called the villagers for help, and they extinguished the fire but due to fire, his 160 Quintal of mustard worth Rs.3 lac had been brunt. During Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR SHARMA Signing time: 5/15/2025 10:47:24 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10597 2 CRA-212-2007 investigation, it has been gathered that the respondents have set fire the Granary of the complainant.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before JMFC Bhind who committed the case to the court of Sessions. The trial court has framed the charges under Section 436/34 and 506 Part 2 of IPC against the respondents/accused persons. They abjured their guilt and took the plea that they have been falsely implicated in the matter. The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses while defence has examined two witnesses. After due appreciation of entire evidence available on record, by the impugned order, the trial court has acquitted the respondents/accused persons from the aforesaid charges. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, appellant has preferred this criminal appeal after taking leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/State contended that the from the statement of complainant Laljit Singh (PW2), Ranvir Singh (PW2), Nathu Singh (PW3), Rameshwar Singh (PW4) Sadhna Devi (PW5) and Malkhan Singh (PW6), it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents/accused persons set the Granary of complainant to fire due to which, complainant sustained loss of Rs.3 lac. Statements of these witnesses are well supported by the Investigating Officer Head Constable Shivdutt Sharma (PW7) Sub Inspector Amar Singh Sikarwar (PW9) and documentary evidence available on record. The trial court has not appreciated the evidence and wrongly acquitted the respondents from the alleged offence. Hence, he prays that the impugned judgment of acquittal be set-aside and the respondents/accused persons be punished for the aforesaid offence.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/state opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection.Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR SHARMA Signing time: 5/15/2025 10:47:24 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10597 3 CRA-212-2007
6. At the time of final arguments, nobody has appeared on behalf of respondents.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the entire record.
8. Complainant Laljit Singh (PW2) has categorically stated in his statement that accused Balram Singh, Bhure Singh and Firangi Singh came to the Granary and hurled filthy abuses and accused Balram pointed gun towards Nathusingh and threatened that if he goes to report, we will kill him and burn him. Thereafter, they burnt his crop of mustard worth Rs.3 lac along with some other domestic articles. But he admitted in his cross-examination that he has not impleaded name of accused persons in the report and even in the FIR, nothing is mentioned that Balram was having a gun and he pointed the same to Nathusingh. The fact of threatening and abusing is also not found in the FIR and his police statement Ex.D/1. Even in para 14 of his cross examination, he has denied entire FIR. In para 17, he has categorically stated that he did not see that any gun was pointed towards Nathusingh by the accused persons. He has narrated this version on the basis of information given by Nathu Singh, therefore, it is clear that there is material contradiction and omissions in the statement of complainant Laljit Singh. Therefore, his statement is not trustworthy. Apart from the above, it is also noteworthy that the prosecution has not proved the FIR which is lodged by the Laljit Singh, therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for not proving material documentary evidence and FIR Ex.P/1 in the evidence.
9. So far as statements of other eye witness Nathu Singh (PW3) is concerned, although in the examination in chief, he has deposed that accused Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR SHARMA Signing time: 5/15/2025 10:47:24 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10597 4 CRA-212-2007 Balram Singh and Bhure Singh and two other unknown persons abused him in filthy language and threatened him for life and they are having gun and Bhala and thereafter, they burnt their Granary. But these material facts were missing in his police statement Ex.D/2. Therefore, there is material contradictions and omissions in the statement of Nathu Singh and his police statement Ex.D/2 and on the basis of the aforesaid, his statement does not appear to be reliable. Same position is with Rameshwar Singh (PW4) and Sadhna Devi (PW5). There is material contradictions and omissions in the statement of Laljit Singh, (PW2), Nathu Singh (PW3) and Rameshwar Singh (PW4) which are not corroborated by the statements of each other and the statement of Rameshwar is totally different from his earlier police statement Ex.D/3. Therefore, statement of Rameshwar Singh (PW4) also cannot be relied upon. Sadhna Devi (PW9) is not eye witness. He did not see the incident, therefore, his statement is not material. Malkhan Singh (PW6) although deposed against accused persons but he is 72 years old person. The incident took place in the night time and nothing was available on record about availability of source of light at the place of incident. Malkhan Singh (PW6) has admitted that at the time of incident, there was dark due to the night, therefore, his statement also does not inspire confidence and not appears to be trustworthy. It is also noteworthy that all these witnesses are relatives and they belong to the same family. The prosecution did not examine any neighbor of the complainant and other independent eye witnesses, therefore, statements of interested witnesses cannot be relied upon in absence of prompt FIR and there is no satisfactory explanation for the said delay. No recovery of weapon has been made from the possession of the accused persons. Complainant Laljit Singh (PW2) and other witnesses have also stated in their cross-examination that there was previous Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR SHARMA Signing time: 5/15/2025 10:47:24 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10597 5 CRA-212-2007 enmity with the accused persons. Therefore, the trial court has rightly discarded the evidence of the prosecution and other witnesses.
10. In view of the appreciation of entire evidence on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial court does not appears to be perverse which require any interference by this court. It is settled principle of law that if the trial court after due appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion to the finding of acquittal, normally, which is not perverse, it should not be interfered with by the appellate court. No ground is available for convicting the respondents/accused persons for the aforesaid offences. There is no substance in this appeal.
11. Resultantly, this criminal appeal filed by the appellant / State is dismissed.
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Rks Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR SHARMA Signing time: 5/15/2025 10:47:24 AM