Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Amit @ Annu Judgement Given By: Hon'Ble ... on 6 February, 2014
M.Cr.C. No.2838/2013
6.2.2014
Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Heard on admission.
The State has preferred the present application
for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment
dated 10.10.2012 passed by Special Judge under
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Chhindwara in
Special Case No.112/2009 whereby the respondent
was acquitted from the charges of offences punishable under Sections 385, 353, 294, 506 (Part I) of I.P.C and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act").
The prosecution's case in short is that on 4.8.2009 the complainants Phoolchand Kakode (PW6), Kaushalya Gautam (PW2) and Smt. R.P. Parte (PW3) had lodged a written FIR to the Police Station Chand, District Chhindwara that the respondent was in habit to make complaints against the complainants that they were not working in the hospital properly. He demanded some money from the complainants, so that he would not lodge any complainant against the complainants. After due investigation a charge sheet was filed which was duly committed to the trial Court.
The respondent abjured his guilt. He took the plea that he was falsely implicated in the matter. He made so many complaints against the complainants to the appropriate authorities and such complaints were correct. He has filed the documents Ex.D/1 to D/8 in the defence and Dr. Sudish Kumar Nagwanshi (DW1), Santosh Yadav (DW2) and Amit Raghuwanshi (DW3) were examined in defence..
The learned Special Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties acquitted the respondent from all the charges.
After considering the submissions made by the learned Panel Lawyer for the State and evidence given by Dr. Anirudh Kaushal (PW1), W.H.W Kaushalya Bai (PW2), Rampyari Kakode (PW3), Parsadi Raghuwanshi (PW4), Phoolchand (PW6) and Rajaram (PW7), it would be apparent that a false complaint was lodged against the respondent. If written FIR Ex.P/1 is considered then it would be apparent that omnibus allegations were made against the respondent and thereafter date 28.7.2009 was inserted in the complaint. No reason has been shown as to why the FIR was lodged with Police Station Chand after delay of seven days. Dr. Anirudh Kaushal (PW1) has stated that the applicant was talking in a loud manner and therefore, a disturbance was caused to the hospital staff. Kaushalya Gautam, Rampyari, Phoolchand, Rajaram etc. have stated that the respondent abused the victim Phoolchand on the basis of the caste. However, no such allegation was made in the FIR Ex.P/1. Since there was no allegation that the respondent caused insult to the victims on the basis of the caste in the FIR and their statements are found after thought, no offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Special Act is made out and therefore, the learned Special Judge has made no error in acquitting the respondent from the said charge. None for the witnesses have stated that the respondent demanded any money though there was an allegation in the FIR that he demanded some amount so that he would not make any complaint against the complainant and any staff members. Without substantial evidence, FIR cannot be taken as a substantial evidence and therefore, there was no evidence that the respondent demanded any money from any of the complainants. Under such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charge of offence under Section 385 of I.P.C. Similarly, the witnesses did not tell about any threat or obscene words told by the respondent and therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charges of Section 506 (Part I) and 294 of I.P.C.
After considering the evidence of all the eye witnesses, it appears that the respondent was using his mobile and he was talking in a loud manner and therefore, some disturbance was caused to the staff of the hospital but, it is not alleged against the respondent that he used any criminal force or assaulted the public servant. Under such circumstances, no offence under Section 353 of I.P.C is made out against the applicant. At the most offence punishable under Section 186 of I.P.C could be constituted but, no Court could take cognizance of that offence unless a complaint is made by the complainant. Phoolchand did not file any kind of complaint so that offence under Section 186 of I.P.C can be made out against the respondent.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, there is no reason by which any interference can be done in the impugned judgment passed by the Special Court. There is no ground to accept the appeal filed by the applicant/State. Consequently, the application for grant of leave to appeal filed by the State is dismissed.
Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information.
(N.K. Gupta) Judge bina