Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of M.P. vs Islam And Anr. on 6 July, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.
Criminal Appeal No.2020/1999
State of Madhya Pradesh
VERSUS
Islam and another
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Siddharth Singh Chouhan, D.G.A. for the State/appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Advocate appointed on behalf of the
respondents from the side of High Court Legal Services
Authority.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on the 8th day of July, 2015) The State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 8.2.1999 passed by the JMFC, Bhopal in criminal case No.482/1994, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charge of offence under Sections 186, 353 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 26.4.1994, Kirti Kumar Verma (P.W.1) was working as LDC in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Gas Victims, Ward No.45 at Bhopal. The respondent Islam went to his seat with a file and ordered him to make his cheque at the priority. He threw the file on his table. When the complainant told that he was busy in preparing another cheque, the respondent assaulted the
- 2 -
Criminal Appeal No.2020 of 1999 complainant Kirti Kumar Verma. Deputy Commissioner for Gas Claims Shri Amrish Kumar Patel has sent a written report to SHO, Police Station - Station Bajariya, Bhopal, who had registered the case and after due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.
3. The respondents abjured their guilt. They took a plea that the complainant Kirti Kumar Verma was demanding bribe for preparing the cheque and when a complaint was made to his higher authorities, a false case has been lodged against the respondents. In support, Noor Khan (D.W.1) and Mustak (D.W.2) were examined.
4. JMFC, Bhopal after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid charges.
5. Since no one was appearing for the respondents to argue the matter therefore, Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Advocate who has a vast experience in dealing with the criminal cases was appointed on behalf of the respondents to argue the matter from the side of High Court Legal Services Committee and thereafter, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Kirti Kumar Verma (P.W.1) has stated that on 26.4.1994, he was working as LDC in the office of Deputy Commissioner relating to Gas Claims in Ward No.45. He has also proved his duty certificate, Ex.P/2. Though Deputy
- 3 -
Criminal Appeal No.2020 of 1999 Commissioner of that Ward was not examined but, that certificate, Ex.P/2 was duly proved. Hence, it is established beyond doubt that Kirti Kumar Verma was a public servant at the time of incident. Kirti Kumar Verma has stated that when he told the respondent Islam that he would work turn by turn then, Islam twisted his neck by holding his face and thereafter, Mustak also held his neck and dragged him. Shahiddudin (P.W.2) an Advocate has supported the evidence given by Kirti Kumar Verma, whereas Jagdish (P.W.4), Assistant Commissioner, Ward No.33, K.P.Shukla (P.W.5), Shyamsunder (P.W.6) were examined and they have turned hostile. Peon Ramkewal was also present at the spot but, he was not examined by the prosecution. Deputy Commissioner, Shri Patel was also not examined by the prosecution.
7. If evidence of Kirti Kumar Verma and Shahiddudin is examined then, Advocate Shahiddudin did not confirm that the respondent Islam twisted the neck of Kirti Kumar Verma by holding his face or Mustak held his neck and dragged the victim Kirti Kumar Verma. Shahiddudin has simply stated that Kirti Kumar Verma was assaulted by the respondents. Shri Shahiddudin has accepted in his cross-examination that on that particular day, 40-50 persons were standing in the Court room, which was of size 20 X 50 square feet and when he heard the noise of shouting and saw towards the table of Kirti Kumar
- 4 -
Criminal Appeal No.2020 of 1999 Verma, the incident had already been caused. However, if a clerk who was sitting on a chair behind a table then, if he would have been dragged by holding his neck then, he must be on the opposite side of the table after the incident but, no such description is given by Shahiddudin. The defence of the respondents was that Kirti Kumar Verma was demanding some amount for preparing the cheque. Noor Khan (D.W.1) and Mustak (D.W.2) were examined to prove that fact. Under these circumstances, there must be an acceptable corroboration to the evidence of Kriti Kumar Verma, if FIR, Ex.P/4 forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner is perused, it does not give the description of alleged "Maarpeet". Looking to the contradictions between the statements of Kriti Kumar Verma and Advocate Shahiddudin about the procedure of assault done by the respondents, testimony of Kriti Kumar Verma cannot be accepted. Possibility cannot be ruled out that the respondents would have made hurdle in the duty of Kriti Kumar Verma by throwing a file on his table but, it is not proved beyond doubt that they assaulted the victim Kriti Kumar Verma or used any criminal force upon him. If such description as shown by Kriti Kumar Verma is to be considered then, certainly, the case would have been registered of offence under Section 332 of IPC, whereas, the trial Court did not frame the charge under Section 332 of IPC.
- 5 -
Criminal Appeal No.2020 of 1999
8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the prosecution could not prove beyond doubt that the respondents used any criminal force upon the public servant or assaulted him. So far as the offence under Section 186 of IPC is concerned, the trial Court could not take cognizance of that offence in absence of any criminal complaint. According to the provisions of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., cognizance of offence under Section 186 of IPC could not be taken otherwise, a complaint in writing is filed either by the public servant or his superior officer. In the present case, no such complaint is filed and therefore, neither the trial Court could take cognizance of offence under Section 186 of IPC, nor could convict the respondents for that offence. JMFC has committed an error in framing of charge under Section 186 of IPC against the respondents at the time when charges were framed.
9. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, there is no substance in the State appeal, so that it may be accepted. Consequently, the State appeal filed against the respondents is hereby dismissed by confirming the judgment passed by the JMFC, Bhopal.
10. The respondents are on bail. Their presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
- 6 -
Criminal Appeal No.2020 of 1999
10. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 8/7/2015 Pushpendra