Madhya Pradesh High Court
Murat Singh vs Dadan Singh on 8 April, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 8th OF APRIL, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1823 of 2014
Between:-
MURAT SINGH S/O SHRI BAIJNATH SINGH , AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, VILL. VINAIKA P.S. JAISINGH
NAGAR SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI KULDEEP SINGH, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. DADAN SINGH S/O LATE SHRI MADHAV SINGH ,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, VILL. VINAIKA P.S.
JAISINGH NAGAR SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JAGAT SINGH S/O SHRI DADAN SINGH , AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, VILLAGE VINAIKA POLICE
STATION JAISINGH NAGAR DISTRICT SHAHDOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. POLICE STATION JAISINGH NAGAR DISTRICT
SHAHDOL THE STATE OF M. P. SHAHDOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI R.P. PRAJAPATI, PANEL LAWYER )
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court delivered the
following:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 31.05.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Trial No.112/2011 (State of M.P. Vs. Dadan Singh and another), victim Murat Singh has filed this appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly facts of the case are that on 15.12.2009 at around 10:45 a.m. Murat Singh (PW-1) resident of village, Bineka P.S. Jaisinghnagar District Shahdol lodged an oral complaint in P.S. Jaisinghnagar before ASI R.D. Pandey (PW-7) wherein he stated that his and Dadan Singh's residents are near to each other. They Signature Not Verified are having some land dispute and a case is pending before SDM Jaisinghnagar. A SAN Digitally signed by BIJU BABY revision is pending before Collector Shahdol. On 15.12.2009, at around 09:00 Date: 2022.04.08 18:18:08 IST a.m., accused Jagat Singh and Dadan Singh armed with Tangiya uttering the 2 words related to mother and sister came in front of his house, when his mother asked them not to utter obscene words, accused Jagat Singh gave a Tangi blow on the head of his mother Siya Bai. His mother fell down and became unconscious. When he went to rescue her, accused Dadan Singh gave a Tangi blow on his head. He sustained injury. On raising alarm by him, Indrabhan, Gulshan, Devraj and Gita Singh came and pacified the matter. Accused persons have caused dangerous to life injuries to them and have also intimidated to eliminate them. Her mother is unconscious and is admitted in Jaisinghnagar Hospital. On the basis of narration given by complainant Murat Singh, FIR Ex.P/1 was registered at FIR No. 639/09 for commission of offence under Sections 307, 294, 323, 506-B read with 34 IPC.
3. Having registered FIR, investigation commenced. After investigation, the police Jaisinghnagar filed charge sheet against the accused persons before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, who in his turn committed the case to the Court of Session.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Murat Singh(PW-
1), B.R. Choudhary (PW-2), Gita Singh (PW-3), Mohan Singh (PW-4), Suman Singh (PW-5), Siya Bai (PW-6), R.D. Pandey (PW-7), Dr. S.D. Kanwar (PW-8) and Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9). Accused Dadan Singh (DW-1) examined himself in defence.
5. After going through the evidence produced by the prosecution by the impugned acquittal order dated 31.05.2014, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons for commission of offence under Sections 324, 324/34, 294 and 506 Part II of IPC. Hence, this appeal before this Court.
6. Mr. Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/injured victim has raised following contentions before this Court:
(1) Learned trial Court erred in ignoring the clear cut testimony of Murat Singh (PW-1), Siya Bai (PW-6), Suman Singh (PW-5) and medical evidence of Dr. S.D. Kanwar (PW-8).
(2) Learned trial Court has erroneously ignored the evidence of aforesaid Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by BIJU BABY Date: 2022.04.08 18:18:08 IST witnesses whereas Murat Singh (PW-1) and Siya Bai (PW-6) in their testimony 3 have stated that accused persons had caused injuries over their heads by means of Tangi. Doctor too has found one injury on the head of Murat Singh and one on the head of Siya Bai.
(3) As the said evidence of Murat Singh (PW-1) and Siya Bai (PW-6) was corroborated by the medical evidence, learned trial Court was not justified in acquitting the accused persons despite the unequivocal testimony of injured witnesses.
(4) Learned trial Court has misread the testimony of Murat Singh (PW-1), Siya Bai (PW-6), Suman Singh (PW-5) and Dr. S.D. Kanwar (PW-8).
(5) The presence of injuries had been proved by the eyewitnesses and that was corroborated by the medical evidence and injured have stated that these were the accused persons who had caused the injuries. Therefore, the learned trial Court had no reason to ignore their evidence.
7. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant/victim have not been adopted by learned Panel Lawyer for the State. He has stated that learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the accused persons and has taken reasonable view in acquitting the accused persons as the evidence of Murat Singh (PW-1) and Siya Bai (PW-6) and other witnesses is full of contradictions, discrepancies and improvements. Therefore, the trial Court considering the evidence on record, has taken the reasonable view after critically examining the evidence produced by the prosecution. The prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and prosecution also failed to establish the genesis of the case. Therefore, it was difficult for the learned Sessions Judge to believe the self- contradictory testimonies of injured witnesses because of contradictions between the ocular and the medical evidence and inherent contradictions between the testimonies of witnesses and the FIR and the other material on record. Hence, the learned trial Court not committed any error in acquitting the accused persons and the acquittal is legally justified.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned Signature Not Verified judgment and record of the trial Court.
SAN Digitally signed by BIJU BABY9. There are certain established principles with regard to the jurisdiction of Date: 2022.04.08 18:18:08 IST the High Court while dealing with an acquittal order. In the case of Ajay 4 Choudhary vs. State of Uttarakhand and another- 2022 CRI. L.J. 152, it has been observed that:
"12. There are certain established principles with regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court while dealing with an acquittal order. In the case of Sampat Babso Kale v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 4 SCC 739], the Honble Supreme Court has laid down the principles with regard to the powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against an acquittal order. The Honble Supreme Court observed as under:-
8. With regard to the powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, the law is well established that the presumption of innocence which is attached to every accused person gets strengthened when such an accused is acquitted by the trial court and the High Court should not lightly interfere with the decision of the trial court which has recorded the evidence and observed the demeanour of witnesses. This Court in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415, laid down the following principles: (SCC p. 432, para 42)
42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, substantial and compelling reasons g o o d and sufficient grounds very strong circumstances distorted conclusions glaring mistakes, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such Signature Not Verified SAN phraseologies are more in the nature of flourishes of language to Digitally signed by BIJU BABY Date: 2022.04.08 18:18:08 IST emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with 5 acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
13. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Naresh [(2009) 9 SCC 368], the Honble Supreme Court opined that an order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there are some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused.
14. These principles have recently been reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Anwar Ali & another v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2020) 10 SCC 166]. Therefore, these settled principles of criminal jurisprudence would have to be kept in mind while examining the legality or illegality of the impugned judgment.
15. It is, indeed, tried to state that the scope of interference with an acquittal order is extremely limited. In case, the view taken by the learned Trial Court is a reasonable one, then the acquittal order should not be interfered with lightly by the Appellate Court. It is only when the learned Trial Court has failed to admit an evidence, which was admissible, or ignored the evidence, which was readily available on record, or mis-appreciated the evidence, or has acquitted the Signature Not Verified SAN accused on the basis of surmises and conjectures, or there is perversity Digitally signed by BIJU BABY Date: 2022.04.08 18:18:08 IST in the reasoning of the learned Trial Court, only in such 6 circumstances would the Appellate Court be justified in overturning the verdict of acquittal, and in convicting the accused. Therefore, while dealing with an acquittal order, the Appellate Court has to reassess the evidence available on record, and evaluate the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court."
10. Murat Singh (PW-1) is the injured star witness of the prosecution. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that on 15.12.2009, when he was taking bath in his bathroom at home, accused Dadan Singh and Jagat Singh armed with Tangi and their wives Sudha Pyari, Radha Pyari and daughter-in-law Jaimanti armed with lathis trespassed into his house and abused. Accused Jagat Singh gave a Tangi blow on the head of her mother. After raising alarm her wife informed him, at this, when he came out of the bathroom, Dadan Singh gave a Tangi blow on his head. The matter was pacified by Indrabhan Singh, Gulshan Singh, Devraj Singh and Gita Singh. In para 6 & 7 of his cross-examination, when confronted with FIR Ex.P/1, Murat Singh stated that he had informed the police that at the time of incident, he was taking bath in his house and at that time, accused Dadan Singh and Jagat Singh armed with Tangi and their wives Sudha Pyari, Radha Pyari and younger daughter-in-law Jaimanti armed with lathis trespassed into his house. He further stated that if these facts are not mentioned in the report Ex.P/1 he cannot assign any reason for the same.
11. ASI R.D. Pandey (PW-7) in para 5 of his evidence has clearly stated that Murat Singh has not stated aforesaid facts to him at the time of registration of FIR. Thus, it is apparent that Murat Singh has made material improvements in his Court statement. It is also to be noted that his police statement had been recorded after five months of the incident but the aforesaid facts are not mentioned in his police statement Ex.D/1 also. Thus, it is apparent that in Court statement, Murat Singh had made material improvements from his police statement and FIR. Thus, it is clear that he has not only improved his story before the Court but has also made exaggerated statement.
12. Siya Bai (PW-6) has deposed that accused Jagat Singh and Dadan Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by BIJU BABY Date: 2022.04.08 18:18:08 IST Singh were abusing in front of her house. At that time, she was taking care of her 7 husband Baijnath. When she went out of her house and asked accused Dadan Singh as to why he is uttering filthy words, accused Dadan Singh asked her as to who has thrown garbage. At this, when his son Murat Singh came out of the house, accused Dadan Singh was wielding a Tangi, Dadan Singh's wife was wielding a lathi, accused Jagat Singh was wielding a Tangi. Accused Jagat Singh gave a Tangi blow on her head. She fell down and became unconscious and when her son Murat, Indrabhan and Ram Singh came to pacify the matter, Dadan gave a Tangi blow on the head of her son. This witness has no where stated about the presence of Jagat Singh's wife Radha and younger daughter-in-law Jaimanti at the time of occurrence there. She has stated nothing about the trespassing of accused persons in her house. This witness Siya Bai, in her cross-examination, has admitted that they have dispute over the land as Dadan is cultivating their land. She further stated that accused persons did not trespass into her house and no Maar Peet took place inside the house. She has stated that her house and the house of Murat Singh are separate and they are living separately for the last 4-5 years. The evidence of this witness Siya Bai does not corroborate with the evidence of Murat Singh (PW-1) and according to this witness, the entire incident took place outside the house and not inside the house and according to her, the incident was caused by three persons and not by five persons.
13. Gita Bai (PW-3) has stated that she had not seen any incident. She had seen Siya Bai lying and having an injury on her head. She had not seen any injury on any other person. She clearly stated that she had not seen any injury on the person of Murat Singh. She had been declared hostile by the prosecution and has not supported the prosecution story.
14. Murat Singh (PW-1) and Siya Bai (PW-6) were examined by Dr.S.D. Kanwar (PW-8). He has stated that he had found one lacerated wound over the head of Murat Singh and one over the head of Siya Bai and the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. In his cross-examination, he has clearly stated that injuries found on the person of Siya Bai and Murat Singh cannot be caused by Signature Not Verified Tangi and the injuries were caused by some hard and blunt object. Thus, the SAN Digitally signed by BIJU BABY evidence of Siya Bai and Murat Singh does not find corroboration from the Date: 2022.04.08 18:18:08 IST medical evidence of Dr.S.D. Kanwar (PW-8).
815. B.R. Choudhary (PW-2) in the course of investigation, seized blood stained soil and plain soil from the place of occurrence and prepared seizure memo Ex.P/3. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had seized blood stained soil from the cemented road. He has clearly stated that he had not found any blood stained inside the house of Baijnath Singh. Thus, even from the evidence of investigation of B.R. Choudhary (PW-2), it is apparent that no incident took place inside the house of Murat Singh.
16. Suman Singh (PW-5) is the wife of Murat Singh (PW-1). She has deposed that three years ago accused Dadan Singh and Jagat Singh armed with Tangiya came to them and abused. When her mother-in-law asked them not to abuse, accused Jagat Singh gave a Tangi blow on the head of her mother-in-law and when her husband went to rescue her mother Dadan gave a Tangi blow on his head. She has further stated that after the incident one Tangi belonging to accused Jagat Singh Gond having blood stains was lying on the spot and she had taken that Tangi inside her home and later it was seized by the police and seizure memo Ex.P/5 was prepared. Dr. S. D. Kanwar (PW-8) did not find any injury caused by Tangi on the heads of Murat Singh and Siya Bai. Therefore, the evidence of Suman Singh (PW-5) that she had taken one blood stained Tangi from the spot which was seized by the police is worthless as injuries caused by Tangi were not found on the person of injured. The evidence of this witness that injuries were caused by accused Dadan Singh and Jagat Singh by means of Tangi is not believable. In cross-examination this witness has stated that at the time of occurrence her husband was taking bath at Well whereas as per evidence of Murat Singh (PW-1), he was taking bath inside the bathroom of his house. Thus, the evidence of this witness Suman Singh (PW-5) being contradictory to the evidence of Murat Singh (PW-1) and Siya Bai (PW-6) is not worthy of credence.
17. Dadan Singh (DW-1) in his evidence has deposed that he has land dispute with Murat Singh as their lands are adjoining. When he asked Baijnath as to why garbage was thrown in his field, Indrabhan Singh, Murat Singh, Ram Singh and their parents armed with lathis came and gave lathi blow on his head. Her wife Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by BIJU BABY Date: 2022.04.08 18:18:08 IST was also beaten by Indrabhan, Murat and Ram Singh dragged her inside their 9 house and beat her. He produced documents Ex.D/1 to D/25 of Criminal Case No.19/10 pending before the Special Judge SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Shahdol showing that the injuries were caused to him by Murat Singh and others.
18. Learned trial Court noticing the material improvements and contradictions between the testimony of Murat Singh (PW-1), Suman Singh (PW-
5) and Siya Bai (PW-6) was justified in doubting the truthfulness of their evidence.
19. On a perusal of the evidence of Dadan Singh (DW-1), it is clear that appellant Murat Singh along with others had caused injuries to Dadan Singh, his wife and Sua Bai over the issue of throwing garbage in the field. Most importantly the testimony of Murat Singh (PW-1) is not only full of improvements but is also contradictory to the evidence of Suman Singh (PW-5) and Siya Bai (PW-6). The evidence of aforesaid witnesses is self contradictory and in such situation, learned trial Court has not committed any error in finding that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not convincing and complainant party itself had caused injuries to Dadan Singh and others. But complainant party, with a view to pressurize them, have prepared a false story and lodged FIR by cooking away concocted story.
20. Learned trial Court also noticed the fact that there are clouds of suspicion over the place of occurrence whether the incident took place inside the house or outside the house. As per Murat Singh (PW-1) the incident took place inside the house whereas as per Siya Bai (PW-6) and Suman Singh (PW-5), the incident took place outside the house. Further there are material contradictions among the testimony of Murat Singh (PW-1), Suman (PW-5) and Siya Bai (PW-6) and their evidence does not find corroboration from the medical evidence. It is also worth noting that in this case FIR was registered on the same day but statement of Murat Singh and others were recorded by police almost after 5 months of the incident that also makes prosecution story doubtful.
2 1 . Further more the evidence of Murat Singh (PW-1) does not find support from the promptly lodged FIR and police statement Ex.D/1 and medical Signature Not Verified evidence of Dr.S.D.Kanwar (PW-8). Thus, the material contradictions and the SAN Digitally signed by BIJU BABY evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly say with regard to the truthfulness of Date: 2022.04.08 18:18:08 IST prosecution story. Hence, the possibility that a false case had been prepared 10 against accused Dadan Singh and others with a view to create pressure upon them to compromise in the case registered on the basis of FIR lodged by accused Dadan Singh also cannot be ruled out.
22. It cannot be overlooked that in case of direct evidence, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt. However, the present case is full of doubts. Since the learned trial Court has taken a reasonable and plausible view after critically analyzing the evidence of prosecution, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned acquittal order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Therefore, this Court does not find merit in the appeal presented by appellant/victim.
23. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Trial Court record along with a copy of appeal judgment be sent down immediately to the Court of Sessions Judge, Shahdol.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE b Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by BIJU BABY Date: 2022.04.08 18:18:08 IST