Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 878 (MP)

Taj Khan @ Tajju v. State of M. P.

2014-07-23

N.K.GUPTA

body2014
ORDER : 1. At the request of learned Counsel for the parties heard them finally. 2. The applicants have moved a petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1821/2013 pending before the JMFC, Harda on the basis of the charge-sheet filed in Crime No. 215/2013 registered at Police Station, Chhipawad, District Harda. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 19-9-2013, the complainant-Bhajanlal had lodged an FIR that his cow was sent for grazing but it did not come back in the night. On 19-9-2013, at about 8.00 a.m., Sandeep and Narmadesh Mishra informed the applicant that his cow entered in the field of Tajju Khan and therefore, the applicant-Munna Korku assaulted the cow by a stick, due to that it expired. Thereafter, the applicants took the body of the cow in the tractor-trolley of the applicant-Tajju Khan and threw it in a nala. Before that skin of the cow was removed. The complainant went to the spot, saw his cow and thereafter, lodged an FIR. The Police registered the case against the applicants for offences under sections 295, 429 of Indian Penal Code and section 4/9 of Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratished Adhiniyam, 2004. The witnesses were examined and a memo under section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded of the applicant-Taj Khan @ Tajju Khan and in consequence a tractor-trolley was recovered. 4. After considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be apparent that the Investigation Officer has filed the case diary statements of four witnesses along with the charge-sheet. He examined Govind, photographer and the complainant-Bhajanlal, witnesses Narmadesh and Durga Prasad under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code. Bhajanlal has stated that the incident was informed by Sandeep and Narmadesh Mishra. Similarly, Durga Prasad was a witness of hearsay evidence. Narmadesh has stated that he was informed by Sandeep that the applicants killed the cow of the complainant and thereafter, they had removed the skin of the cow of the complainant. It is true that in the post-mortem report, skin of the cow was found removed. However, the case diary statement of the witness Sandeep is not filed along with the charge-sheet and therefore, an adverse inference shall be drawn that Sandeep did not support the prosecution's story. It is true that in the post-mortem report, skin of the cow was found removed. However, the case diary statement of the witness Sandeep is not filed along with the charge-sheet and therefore, an adverse inference shall be drawn that Sandeep did not support the prosecution's story. Looking to the statements of the various witnesses, it would be apparent that Sandeep was the only eye witness in the case and therefore, no inference can be drawn on the basis of hearsay statements of the witnesses like Narmadesh Mishra, Durga Prasad and Bhajanlal. Hence there is no ocular evidence to the fact that the applicant-Munna Korku assaulted the deceased cow by a stick and killed or the applicants took the cow and threw it in a nala after removing its skin. 5. Police has recovered the tractor-trolley from the applicant-Taj Khan on the basis of his memo under section 27 of the Evidence Act but, if seizure memo of the tractor-trolley dated 19-9-2013 is examined, then, it is nowhere mentioned by Shri Umesh Shukla, Inspector, Police Station, Chhipawad that there was any trace in the trolley that the cow was taken in that tractor-trolley. Under such circumstances, there is no evidence with the Police that the applicants were the persons, who were responsible for death of the cow or they threw the cow in a nala after removing its skin. 6. The charge-sheet has already been filed and therefore, no further investigation remains. After considering the entire evidence collected by the prosecution, no alleged offence appears to be made out against the applicants. It is a fit case in which the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code may be exercised so that the applicants may be prevented to face a baseless trial. 7. Consequently, the petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by the applicants-Taj Khan @ Tajju, Niyaz Khan and Munna Korku is hereby allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 215/2013 is hereby quashed. The Trial Court is directed to drop the proceedings. 8. Copy of the order be sent to the Trial Court for information and compliance.