Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 433 (MP)

STATE OF M. P. v. JOJAN SINGH

2005-03-24

A.K.AWASTHY, DEEPAK VERMA

body2005
JUDGMENT A.K. Awasthy, J. Appellant/State has filed the appeal u/s 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 16-8-1996 in S.T. No. 122/94 by Special Judge Shajapur of the acquittal of the respondent accused from the offence punishable u/s 307/149, and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 3(1 )(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution case is that on 29-7-1994 at about 6.30 PM when complainant Ambaram was returning from his field, all the seven accused persons armed with Lathi and Farsa waylaid him and inflicted the injuries to him by Lathi and Farsa on his hand, head and other part of the body. The eyewitnesses of the incident are Rajubai (PW2), Ratan (PW3) and Parwatibai (PW5). The FIR Ex.P/1 was lodged by Ambaram in Police Station Shajapur and Cri. Appeal No. 124 of 1997 decided on 24-3-2005. (Indore) thereafter he was sent for the medical treatment to the Civil Hospital where Dr. R. C. Sharma (PW6) examined him and found the incised wound on his head and six other injuries and his report is Ex.P/5. During the investigation, the map of the spot Ex.P/11 was prepared and the Lathi and Farsa were seized from the possession of the accused and after usual investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and Trial Court has held that on account of the contradictions in the statements of the interested witnesses the prosecution case is doubtful hence not proved. Appellant/State has submitted that the testimony of the eye-witnesses is trustworthy, and as such the respondent accused should be convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable u/s 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents have supported the judgment alleging that there are glaring contradictions in the testimony of eye witnesses who are partisan and chance witnesses. Ambaram (PW1) has stated that when he was returning to his house, the accused persons belabored him and caused the injuries with Lathi and Farsa. Ambaram (PW1) has further stated that he went to the Police Station and lodged the report Ex.P/1 and thereafter he was sent to the Hospital for the treatment. The version of Ambaram (PW1) that his report was recorded in the Police Station was contradicted by the statement of his brother Ratan (PW3). Ambaram (PW1) has further stated that he went to the Police Station and lodged the report Ex.P/1 and thereafter he was sent to the Hospital for the treatment. The version of Ambaram (PW1) that his report was recorded in the Police Station was contradicted by the statement of his brother Ratan (PW3). Ratan (PW3) has stated in Para 6 of his cross-examination that the report was written in the Hospital. The prosecution case is based on the statement of Ambaram (PW1) and his wife Rajubai (PW2) and Ratan (PW3) his brother. These witnesses have not stated that the mother of the complainant Parwatibai (PW5) had seen the incident while Parwatibai (PW5) has testified that she has seen the accused persons causing injury to the complainant. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is essential to scrutinize minutely the testimony of the witnesses who are closely related. Ambaram (PW1) has narrated in FIR Ex.P/1 that about 25 days before the incident his younger brother Babulal and Ramesh were beaten by Banesingh and his sons. Ambaram (PW1) has denied that the aforesaid version in report Ex.P/1 and in his police statement Ex.D/1. From the statement in Ex.D/10 of Ambaram it is clear, that the criminal case is pending against one Jia for causing injury to the brother but Ambaram (PW1) has denied this fact on oath. Ambaram (PW1) has stated that when after easing in the jungle he was returning to his house, the accused persons over powered and caused injury to him. Ambaram has not disclosed this fact to his wife or son. It is pertinent to note that in the FIR Ex.P/1, Ambaram (PW1) has alleged that ten persons together have caused the injury to him while his wife Rajubai (PW2) has stated that only seven persons have caused the injury to her husband. Ambaram (PW1) has stated that some of the accused had covered their faces by the cloth while the eye witnesses have not stated that the face of some other accused was covered. The statement of Parwatibai (PW5) is that all the accused were armed with Farsa and Banesingh was having the gun while Ambaram (PW1) has stated that some of the accused were armed with Lathi and some were armed with the Farsa. There are contradictions in the statement of the eye witnesses about the fact that which injury was caused at which place by which accused. There are contradictions in the statement of the eye witnesses about the fact that which injury was caused at which place by which accused. The learned Trial Court has discussed the contradictions in between the statement of the eye witnesses and also the contradiction in the statement of eye witnesses from their earlier police statement. There are material omissions in the testimony of eye witnesses. The presence of the mother, wife and the brother of the complainant at the place of incident is highly unnatural. The incident has taken place in the field outside the Village. How the wife, brother and the mother reached on the spot is not properly explained and their presence is a mere chance. Prosecution case is not supported by any independent witnesses. It is observed in case of Pramod Mandal v. State of Bihar, 2005 SCC (Cri) 75 that if view taken by the Trial Court is found to be a possible and reasonable, the Appellate Court shall not interfere with it. It is laid down in case of Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh, 2004 SCC (Cri) 1435 that the Appellate Court can review the evidence and interfere where compelling reasons exist such as, admissible evidence has been unreasonably and unjustifiably ignored, etc. and if two views are possible, the one favorable to the accused should be adopted. The learned Counsel for the appellant/State has failed to point out any perversity or glaring mistake in the appreciation of the evidence. The cogent and plausible reasons are given and vivid and detail discussion is done by the Trial Court in rejecting the statement of Ambaram (PW1) his wife, brother and mother. No ground exists to disturb the finding of Trial Court. The appeal is without merit and it is, hereby, dismissed.