Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1587 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Jaguir

2014-12-03

AJIT SINGH, N.K.GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT : N.K. Gupta, J. 1. Heard on admission. 2. The State has preferred the present leave application under Section 378 (iii) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 4.3.2014 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Khandwa in Special case No. 66/2010, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of offence under Sections 294, 323/34, 506(ii), 436 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the complainant Mehtab (P.W.1) was residing at village Devalikala in a hutment constructed in his own field. On 26.6.2010, at about 10 p.m. in the night when complainant Mehtab came back from village Khalawa, the respondents visited his hut and started abusing him with obscene words and on the basis of words relating to his caste. Thereafter, the respondent Jaquir assaulted him by a lathi (stick) causing injuries on both of his hands and back. When the complainant alongwith his sons started leaving the spot, the respondents set fire on some garbage lying in front of his hutment. Due to that arson, 3 bags of soyabean, various beddings, bed, cot etc. had burnt. On the next day, the complainant went to the police station Khalawa and lodged an FIR. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. 4. After considering the submissions made by the learned Panel lawyer and looking to the evidence recorded by the trial Court, it appears that the complainant had lodged a false FIR in the matter. 5. It is true that there was enmity between the parties. It was accepted by various witnesses that initially Mehtab went out of the village and he did not come back for years together and the field in dispute was in possession of the respondents No. 2 and 3. It is also admitted by the witnesses that the complainant constructed a hut in the field of the respondents No. 2 and 3. It is also proved by the investigation officer and other witnesses that arson took place in the hutment of the complainant and a loss was caused to him but, it was necessary for the complainant to prove that such arson was caused by the respondents. It is also proved by the investigation officer and other witnesses that arson took place in the hutment of the complainant and a loss was caused to him but, it was necessary for the complainant to prove that such arson was caused by the respondents. In this respect, if evidence is examined then, the prosecution witnesses Mehtab (P.W.1), Jhuma Bai (P.W.2), Genda Bai (P.W.3), Sukhlal (P.W.5), Gorelal (P.W.8) and Mamta (P.W.9) have stated that the crime was committed by the respondents. They abused with filthy abuses and also on the basis of caste of the complainant and thereafter, they set hutment of the complainant on fire. The witnesses have stated that the respondents had also assaulted the victim Mehtab. However, Mamta (P.W.9) daughter of the complainant did not say that the respondents assaulted the victim Mehtab. 6. Witness Sukhram (P.W.7) who was the independent witness has turned hostile. Genda Bai (P.W.3) did not state that the respondents assaulted Mehtab by sticks. On the contrary, she has stated that the respondent Mangal pelted stones on Mehtab. Similarly, Jhuma Bai, wife of the complainant has stated that no incident of assault took place, whereas Mehtab (P.W.1) and Sukhlal, son of Mehtab have stated that the respondent No. 2 Jaquir assaulted the victim Mehtab by sticks causing injuries on various parts of his body. In this connection, Dr.Shailendra Katariya (P.W.11) was examined who proved the MLC report, Ex.P/7- A. He found an abrasion on right forearm and left forearm of the victim Mehtab, whereas no such co-related injury was found by him as informed by Mehtab and his son Sukhlal. Under such circumstances, looking to the material contradiction between the statements of Mehtab, Sukhlal and other eye witnesses and also the testimony of Mehtab and Sukhlal is not corroborated by the medical evidence, their testimony appears to be disbelievable. 7. If it is presumed that the incident took place as told by the witnesses and arson took place then, according to the complainant Mehtab, next day in the early morning, he went to the police station and lodged an FIR, Ex.P/1. However, FIR was lodged at 5.30 p.m. in the evening on the next day of the incident. No acceptable explanation has been given by the complainant about such delay in lodging the FIR. However, FIR was lodged at 5.30 p.m. in the evening on the next day of the incident. No acceptable explanation has been given by the complainant about such delay in lodging the FIR. He did not say that police refused to write down his FIR in the morning or he was detained by someone. If the incident took place in the night at about 10 p.m. then, the complainant Mehtab could lodge the FIR at about 8 to 10 a.m. on the next day morning. Delay in lodging the FIR could be caused because the complainant did not know as to who committed the crime and therefore, he tried to enquire the matter and thereafter, an FIR was lodged or the arson took place in his absence and therefore, no one of his family had sustained injuries due to that arson and thereafter, due to enmity between the parties, the complainant had lodged a false FIR against the respondents and to show the incident to be genuine one, he had mentioned the facts of abusement, quarrel and assault, whereas looking to the contradictions between the statements of various eye witnesses and in absence of such injuries as claimed by the victim Mehtab, it appears that no such incident took place with the complainant at the time of arson. Possibility cannot be ruled out that to implicate the respondents in crime of arson, the entire story of quarrel etc. was created, so that the complainant and his family members could claim themselves to be eye witnesses. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from all the aforesaid charges. There is no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. It is not a case, in which leave to appeal may be granted. Consequently, leave application filed by the State is hereby dismissed. 9. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.