Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 229 (MP)

Daliram v. Ashok Kumar

2015-02-24

N.K.GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : N.K. Gupta, J. 1. The applicant has preferred the present revision against the judgment of acquittal dated 23.1.2001 passed by the 1st Additional Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Waraseoni, District Balaghaat in Special Case No. 98/2000, whereby the respondent nos.1 & 2 have been acquitted from the charges of offence under Sections 332, 506-B & 457 of the IPC and Section3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter it would be referred as 'the Special Act'). 2. The prosecution's case in short is that on 6.9.2000 at about 4:25 p.m. the complainant Daliram (PW-1), who was a teacher in the Government Middle School, Dongarmali (Police Station Rampayli, District Balaghat) was present in the school. Some girls had informed that the respondent nos.1 & 2 were standing in the ground and making comments over the girls. Teacher Daliram went to the spot and asked the respondent nos.1 & 2 about their presence in the school campus then, they came inside the school and abused him with obscene words and words relating to his caste and also assaulted him by kicks and fists. Peon Chandu Lal saved the complainant however, the respondent nos.1 & 2 gave a threat to the complainant and thereafter, started assaulting him by the belts. The complainant Daliram sustained the injuries on his head, back and chest. Another teacher Mr. Lilhare came and saved the complainant Daliram. The complainant referred the matter to the Sarpanch concerned but no decision was taken and therefore, on 8.9.2000, he had lodged an FIR Ex.P/1. He was sent for medico legal examination and after due investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the JMFC Waraseoni, who committed the case to the Special Court. 3. The respondent nos.1 & 2 abjured their guilt. They took a plea that it was the complainant, who abused them and also assaulted. Actually, the respondent nos.1 & 2 and other boys were playing cricket in the ground and ball went inside the school campus and therefore, the respondent nos.1 & 2 went to take the ball back. In defence, Bharat Lal (DW-1), Sheikh Akram (DW-2) and Ratiram Lilhare (DW-3) were examined. 4. After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, the trial Court acquitted the respondent nos.1 & 2 from all the charges. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties 6. In defence, Bharat Lal (DW-1), Sheikh Akram (DW-2) and Ratiram Lilhare (DW-3) were examined. 4. After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, the trial Court acquitted the respondent nos.1 & 2 from all the charges. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties 6. The complainant Daliram (PW-1), student Ganeshram (PW-2) and Chandu Lal (PW-3) have examined to prove the prosecution's evidence. They have stated that initially, the respondent nos.1 & 2 came inside in the campus of school and abused the complainant Daliram with obscene words and words related to his caste. They also assaulted by kicks and fists and thereafter, Chandu Lal tried to save the victim. Again, they assaulted the victim by belts. However, the FIR Ex.P/1 has been lodged with the delay of two days. The complainant was working as a teacher in the school and if any incident took place in the school with him then, it was for him to send his FIR through the Headmaster of that school or he would have lodged an FIR directly to the police station. It was not told by the complainant that he gave the FIR to the Headmaster or it was kept pending by him. On the contrary, he has submitted that he gave an intimation in writing to the school development committee and Sarpanch was the chairman of that committee but on calling the meeting, nothing took place in that meeting and thereafter, the complainant had lodged the FIR. Ratiram (DW-3) has stated that in the meeting, the respondent nos.1 & 2 had informed that they were plying the cricket in the ground and in taking the ball back from the school campus, a dispute arose with the teacher Daliram but the witnesses have informed that it was the complainant Daliram, who shouted upon the respondent nos.1 & 2 and a scuffling took place out of the school campus. The Sarpanch adjourned the meeting for 9th September but in the meantime, the complainant had lodged the FIR. Under these circumstances, it appears that FIR was lodged with the delay without any reasonable ground. The complainant was expected to give his FIR to the Headmaster against the respondent nos.1 & 2 on the same very day. 7. Dr. Sujata Gedam (PW-4) had examined the victim Daliram and gave a report Ex.P/2. Under these circumstances, it appears that FIR was lodged with the delay without any reasonable ground. The complainant was expected to give his FIR to the Headmaster against the respondent nos.1 & 2 on the same very day. 7. Dr. Sujata Gedam (PW-4) had examined the victim Daliram and gave a report Ex.P/2. According to her report, tenderness and superficial abrasions were found over parietal region, left temporal region and right frontal region of the skull. Superficial abrasions were also found on right shoulder joint, whereas the complainant was making complaint of chest pain on middle part of left side. Dr. Gedam did not find any mark of injury caused by the belts. The complainant has stated that he sustained the injuries on his back and chest, however no such injury was found. The complainant did not state that he received fist on his head and therefore, there is no reason that he would have sustained abrasions and tenderness on his head by assault caused in the incident. The medical report as proved by Dr. Gedam does not corroborate the testimony of the complainant Daliram. Ganesh, who was student of the complainant could state in favour of the complainant due to by tutoring, whereas Chandu Lal was also a peon in the school and subordinate to the complainant. It is strange that the co-teacher of the complainant Mr. Lilhare was neither examined by the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. nor examined before the trial Court to confirm the testimony of the complainant. On the other hand, Bharat Lal (DW-1) and Sheikh Akram (DW-2) have stated that on playing the cricket, the ball went inside the boundary of the school and when the respondent nos.1 & 2 went to fetch the ball, the complainant abused them and also assaulted them and to counter to his overt act, he has lodged a false FIR against the respondent nos.1 and 2. Sarpanch Ratiram (DW-3) has also accepted that these witnesses have stated such facts before him in the first meeting and therefore, he found that the allegation made by the complainant was not correct. If the defence evidence is not accepted then, allegation made by the complainant appears to be unnatural. There was no previous enmity between the complainant and the respondent nos.1 & 2. If the defence evidence is not accepted then, allegation made by the complainant appears to be unnatural. There was no previous enmity between the complainant and the respondent nos.1 & 2. There was no need to the respondent nos.1 & 2 to go inside the school boundary and to assault the complainant Daliram. Looking to the allegations made by the complainant, the story told by the defence evidence appears to be correct that the respondent nos.1 & 2 went inside the school boundary to fetch their ball and thereafter, a dispute arose. 8. It is established that the complainant had not stated the entire story but hidden the reason for quarrel, whereas his FIR is belated and the medical report is not corroborative to the testimony of the complainant. His co-teacher Mr. Lilhare was neither examined by the police nor by the Court and therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that to counter the allegations made by the respondent nos.1 & 2, the complainant had lodged such a false FIR. Hence, the entire case is doubtful and therefore, if the trial Court has acquitted the respondent nos.1 & 2 then, no error has been committed by the trial Court. There is no illegality or perversity visible in the judgment passed by the trial Court and therefore, there is no reason to accept the present revision filed by the complainant/applicant. 9. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the complainant/applicant is hereby dismissed. 10. Copy of the order be sent to the Courts below alongwith their records for information.