Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 944 (MP)

Surendra Singh v. State of M. P.

2001-12-12

S.L.KOCHAR

body2001
JUDGMENT (Oral) This criminal appeal is filed by the appellants against the judgment and finding dated 1.7.1992 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch, District Mandsaur in Special Crimil1al Case No. 104/91 convicting and sentencing the appellant Promod under section 324, IPC and releasing him on probation as also sentencing appellant Vinod under section 323, IPC; he has also been released on probation and appellant Surendrasingh convicted under section 323, IPC and imposing fine of Rs. 300/-; in default, simple imprisonment for one and half months. Prosecution case in brief was that on 27th July, 1991, while complainant Madanlal (PW 2) was going to Neemuch Hospital in the morning at about 7.00 a.m. to attend his wife Rukhminibai, who was admitted in the hospital on 26th July, 1991 because she was assaulted by the accused persons on that day, was stopped by the accused persons and asked him as to why he lodged report in the police station against them and thereafter they started assaulting him by iron rod, fists and knife. Nandkishore (PW 3), brother of the complainant, was assaulted by the accused persons. Complainant Madanlal (PW 2) lodged report in the police station, Ex. P-4, on the same day at 7.30 a.m. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellants for the offence punishable under section 3 (i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act). The trial Court framed charges against the appellants for the offences punishable under section 3(i) (x) of the Act. The appellants abjured their guilt. According to them, due to some previous enmity, they were falsely implicated in the case. The prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses and got proved 8 documents in total. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, convicted the appellants as indicated above against which this appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The statements of the witnesses are contradictory on material particulars and their version has not been duly corroborated by the independent witnesses as well as medical report. The counsel further submits that the names of the witnesses are not mentioned in the FIR and the witness Manohar Lal was a got up witness. The statements of the witnesses are contradictory on material particulars and their version has not been duly corroborated by the independent witnesses as well as medical report. The counsel further submits that the names of the witnesses are not mentioned in the FIR and the witness Manohar Lal was a got up witness. On the other hand, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that the trial Court has rightly relied upon the statements of the injured complainant Madanlal (PW 2) and his brother Nandkishore (PW 3). The statements of both these witnesses have been duly corroborated by the independent witness Manoharlal (PW 4). Their statements have also been corroborated by the medical evidence. Statement of Madanlal (PW 2) has also been corroborated by FIR Ex.P-4 lodged by him. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that there is no force in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. FIR Ex. P-4 lodged by Madanlal (PW 2) is well in time. The incident was of 27th July, 1991 at 7.00 a.m. whereas the FIR was lodged on the same day at 7.35 a.m. This FIR is containing the names of the appellants as well as their active participation for causing injuries to injured Madanlal (PW 2) and Nandkishore (PW 3). Injured Madanlal (PW 2) was examined by Dr. Rampal Maheshwari (PW 1) who found as many as 12 injuries on his person and these injuries were caused by sharp and hard-edged weapon. Another injured Nandkishore (PW 3) has also suffered 9 injuries on his person and these were also caused by sharp and hardedged object. The medical report and the statement of doctor are also duly corroborating the statement of injured Madanlal (PW 2) and Nandkishore (PW 3). This Court has gone through the entire statements of Madanlal (PW 2) and Nandkishore (PW 3) and found nothing adverse to discard their testimony. Non-mention of the name of the eye-witness Manoharlal (PW 4) in the FIR, does not make any damage to the prosecution case. FIR has given substantial ocular account. In defence, the appellants have not examined any witness and also have not filed any document. This Court is not finding any fault and legal infirmity in the judgment and findings given by the trial Court and the same deserves to be maintained. FIR has given substantial ocular account. In defence, the appellants have not examined any witness and also have not filed any document. This Court is not finding any fault and legal infirmity in the judgment and findings given by the trial Court and the same deserves to be maintained. The appeal of the appellants is dismissed as having no substance on the question of sentences, it has already been leniently dealt with by the trial Court. That too does not deserve any interference. The appeal of the appellants is, accordingly, dismissed. The conviction and sentences imposed by the trial Court are maintained.