Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Ballu Singh ... on 6 February, 2014
M.Cr.C. No.10935/2012
6.2.2014
Shri R. N. Yadav, 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 7.7.2012 passed by Special Judge under SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Satna in Special Case
No.27/2008 whereby the respondent was acquitted
from the charges of offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 502-II 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 14.2.2008 the complainant Bhola Prasad (PW3) had submitted a typed report before the SHO, AJAK, Satna that on 11.2.2008 his wife Manwati (PW2) was going to distribute the polio drops amongst the children at Village Chibora. At that time the respondent came by motorcycle and he called the complainant. He told that the complainant would take the charge of the motorcycle and to clean it and also to get its repairing because one tire of the motorcycle was punctured. The complainant told him that let him administer his duty to give polio drops to the various children in the locality and thereafter, he would get the motorcycle repaired. The respondent abused him on the basis of the caste and assaulted him. A loop of rope was affixed in his neck and thereafter, he was dragged. The respondent assaulted the victim in bad manner. Thereafter, he burnt the shirt and pant of the victim and he tried to take the victim for electrocution. Swamideen Saket (PW4) intervened in the matter and saved the complainant. Thereafter, Ram Kalesh, Dy. Sarpanch, Indrawati (PW11), Ramashray (PW6) etc. came to the spot who saved the complainant. The complainant submitted a typed report to the Police Station AJAK, Satna where the FIR was recorded. After due investigation the charge sheet was filed against the respondent.
The respondent abjured his guilt. He has stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter. Actually the nurses Krishna Singh and Nirmala Singh were administering the polio drops to the various children and Manwati Saket, wife of the complainant, was assisting them being ASHA's worker. The respondent visited from that side and he asked the complainant that what he was doing between the various women. Thereafter, the complainant started quarreling with the respondent. However, the respondent shouted upon the complainant but, nothing more has been done by the respondent. He was falsely implicated due to political enmity between the parties. In defence Krishna Kumar Saket (DW1) and Ramkhilawan Kol @ Dabbu (DW2) were examined, who supported the defence of the respondent.
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, if evidence adduced by the parities is considered, then it would be apparent that so many eye witnesses were examined by the prosecution including Manwati (PW2), Bhola Prasad (PW3), Swamideen (PW4), Vipin (PW5), Ramashray (PW6), Ramkalesh Kol (PW8), Dashrath Prasad Saket (PW10) and Indrawati (PW11). Out of them Ramashray (PW6), Ramkalesh Kol (PW8) and Dashrath Prasad Saket (PW10) have turned hostile. It was apparent that the incident took place when a distribution of polio drops was going on. It is accepted by the witnesses that the nurses Krishna Singh and Nirmala Singh were also present at that time but, name of these witnesses were not mentioned by the complainant in the FIR. The witnesses who confirmed the story were the related witnesses and there are lot of contradictions between the statements of the various witnesses relating to the assault caused by the respondent. It was alleged that the victim Bhola Prasad was dragged by tying a rope on his neck and thereafter, the respondent sat on his chest and assaulted on his chest, back and abdomen by a piece of brick. In this relation if FIR Ex.P/20 is considered then, it is apparent that the FIR is prepared by some law knowing person. The FIR was lodged with delay of at least three days. Reason is shown that the respondent threatened the complainant. The complainant Bhola Prasad accepted in para 8 that the respondent and his relatives surrounded the complainant for two days so that he could not go to lodge an FIR but, such allegation was not mentioned in the FIR Ex.P/2 and therefore, the explanation of delay appears to be a falsehood which cannot be accepted.
Similarly if the evidence of Dr. Tiwari (PW1) is examined then he found a contusion on the back of the victim and one ligature mark on back of his neck. Injury caused on back of the chest was 48 hours old and the second injury was old. When the FIR was lodged with delay of at least 72 hours then the injury found on the back of the victim must be an injury caused after the incident and therefore, that injury was not related with the incident. If the respondent assaulted the victim by a piece of brick on his chest, abdomen and back then why such injuries were not found by Dr.Tiwari (PW1). Similarly, it is alleged by the complainant Bhola Prasad (PW3) that the respondent dragged him after tying rope on his neck then, he must have sustained so many abrasions due to dragging but, no such abrasions were found. If he was dealt with help of a rope then ligature must have come in front of his neck but, it was found on back of his neck. Under such circumstances, the testimony of the complainant as well as the witnesses is not corroborated by the medical evidence. In absence of the abrasions of dragging, it would be apparent that the complainant is stating a falsehood and he has got corroboration of his story by his interested witnesses. He did not name the nurses Krishna Singh or Nirmla Singh as eye witnesses whereas, the independent witnesses have turned hostile. The defence witness Ramkhilawan Kol @ Dabbu (PW2) was also from the scheduled tribe and witness Krishna Kumar Saket (DW1) was of the caste of the complainant. Therefore, it cannot be said that they supported the respondent on the basis of the caste.
The complainant had mentioned that initially when he was assaulted by the respondent and dragged, there was nobody present at the spot. Vipin Saket (PW5) went to his house and informed to others. Thereafter, his brothers, Deputy Sarpanch Ramkalesh Adiwasi, and Indrawati (PW11) etc. came to the spot. Under such circumstances, all the witnesses examined by the complainant came to the spot after the incident whereas, they claimed themselves to be eye witnesses.
Under such circumstances, the learned Special Judge has rightly disbelieved the prosecution's evidence including the evidence of the complainant and therefore, he has rightly acquitted the respondent from all the aforesaid charges. The possibility cannot be ruled out that a false case was created by the complainant due to political enmity and therefore, if any doubt is created then benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and therefore, no interference can be done by this Court on the appeal. It is not a good case in which leave to appeal can be granted. Consequently, the application for grant of leave to appeal is dismissed at motion stage.
Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information.
(N.K. Gupta) Judge bina