Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 236 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Sunil

2015-02-25

N.K.GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : N.K. Gupta, J. 1. The State has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 13.3.2002 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sehore in Special case No. 70/2000, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of offence under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as "Special Act ") and Sections 294, 447, 427 and 2 counts charges of Section 323/34 of IPC. 2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 4.7.1998, at about 5 p.m., the complainant Gulab Bai (P.W.3) alongwith her sister-in-law Anar Bai (P.W.6) went to her field, situated at village Dabri. She found that the respondent Sunil was ploughing the field and he destroyed the crop of Jawar. When the complainant prohibited to do so, the respondent abused the complainant with words relating to her caste. Thereafter, the respondent Sunil assaulted her by Farsi (bigger axe) causing injury on her left wrist. Thereafter, he threw a stone causing injury on her left shoulder. Anar Bai has tried to save the complainant then, the respondent Sunil assaulted her by Piranha, penetrating object and caused injury to her. Remaining respondents had various weapons with them and thereafter, the respondents ran away. The complainant had lodged an FIR in the same night at Police station Kotwali, District Sehore and thereafter, she was directed for her medico legal examination to District Hospital, Sehore. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Ashta, who committed the case to the Special Court. 3. The respondents abjured their guilt. They took a specific plea that they were in possession of the property and the complainant party was the encroacher. Hence, they were falsely implicated in the matter. However, no oral defence evidence was adduced. A copy of the judgment dated 21.12.1999 passed by JMFC, Sehore in criminal case No. 515/1998 was filed. 4. The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, acquitted the respondents from all the charges. 5. Since no one was appearing for the respondents and appeal was much old of the year 2000, Shri P.C. Gupta, Advocate from the panel of High Court Legal Services Committee, who has vast experience in dealing with the criminal cases, is appointed by High Court Legal Services Committed to argue the matter on behalf of the respondents. 5. Since no one was appearing for the respondents and appeal was much old of the year 2000, Shri P.C. Gupta, Advocate from the panel of High Court Legal Services Committee, who has vast experience in dealing with the criminal cases, is appointed by High Court Legal Services Committed to argue the matter on behalf of the respondents. Thereafter, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. After considering the evidence given by the complainant Gulab Bai (P.W.3) and Anar Bai (P.W.6), it appears that initially a report was lodged against 4 persons but, in the statements, Gulab Bai and Anar Bai have concentrated only against the respondent Sunil. No allegation was made against the remaining respondents that either they assaulted these witnesses or they abused them on the basis of the caste and therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the remaining respondents from all the charges appended against them. So far as the case of respondent Sunil is concerned, it was alleged by Gulab Bai and Anar Bai that they ploughed the field of Gulab Bai and Anar Bai by making encroachment. However, he has accepted that a similar case was lodged by her in past and trial took place by JMFC, Sehore. In this connection, if document Ex.P/1 judgment in that case is read then, it would be apparent that a case of offence under Sections 447 of IPC was alleged against the respondent Sunil for encroachment dated 27.6.1998 and the trial Court acquitted the respondent Sunil with the conclusion that the respondent Sunil was already in possession of that property and therefore, no offence under Section 447 of IPC was made out against the respondent. 7. On the basis of such conclusion, it would be apparent that when the respondent Sunil was already in possession of the property, no offence under Section 447 of IPC was made out against the respondent Sunil and the witnesses Gulab Bai and Anar Bai had no reason to visit the disputed land on that particular day. According to Gulab Bai and Anar Bai, Gulab Bai was assaulted by the respondent Sunil by a farsi, causing an injury on her left wrist. However, if report, Ex.P/3 given by Dr.A.A. Qureshi (P.W.1) is examined then, one abrasion having size 2 x 1/4 cms on right arm was found, which could be caused by hard and blunt object. According to Gulab Bai and Anar Bai, Gulab Bai was assaulted by the respondent Sunil by a farsi, causing an injury on her left wrist. However, if report, Ex.P/3 given by Dr.A.A. Qureshi (P.W.1) is examined then, one abrasion having size 2 x 1/4 cms on right arm was found, which could be caused by hard and blunt object. The complainant Gulab Bai did not say that any blunt portion of farsi have touched to her body and therefore, such injury which was found by Dr.Qureshi to the complainant Gulab Bai, could not be caused by farsi and therefore, medical report is contrary to the statements made by the complainant Gulab Bai. Similarly Dr.Qureshi found an abrasion of size 0.5 x 0.5 cms on right wrist of Anar Bai and gave his report, Ex.P/2. He has also opined that such injury could be caused by hard and blunt object. Dr.Qureshi has also opined that injury of Anar Bai as well as Gulab Bai could be self inflicted. On the basis of the medical report of the victims, it appears that injuries found to the victims did not match with their statement that assault was caused by a bigger axe or by Piranha. Also in the FIR, Ex.P/13, it was mentioned that Anar Bai has sustained an injury of Piranha. However, Anar Bai has stated that she was assaulted by the respondent Sunil with a farsi on her shoulder. She did not say anything about any assault caused on her right wrist, whereas Gulab Bai has stated that the respondent Sunil gave a stroke from the base of Farsi to Anar Bai, causing an injury on her back. Statement of Gulab Bai is quite different from the statement of Anar Bai relating to assault and weapon of assault. These statements are contradictory to the FIR, Ex.P/13 and allegations made in the FIR as well as made in the Court did not match with the injury found by Dr.Qureshi to the victim Anar Bai and therefore, it appears that the victims are telling a falsehood relating to the injuries caused to them. 4 persons were roped in the case and one nail mark each was found to Anar Bai and Gulab Bai, which could be self inflicted. Hence, their testimony cannot be believed that the respondent Sunil had assaulted them by any weapon. 4 persons were roped in the case and one nail mark each was found to Anar Bai and Gulab Bai, which could be self inflicted. Hence, their testimony cannot be believed that the respondent Sunil had assaulted them by any weapon. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the 2 counts charges of offence under Section 323 of IPC. 8. As discussed above, the respondent Sunil was already in possession of the suit property and therefore, it cannot be said that he dispossessed the complainant Gulab Bai from that property and therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent Sunil and other respondents from the charge of offence under Section 3(1)(v) of Special Act. It is strange that the complainant has passed through Police Station Ashta and thereafter, lodged the FIR, Ex.P/6 at Police Station Kotwali, District Sehore and ultimately, it was transferred to Police Station Ashta. Gulab Bai has stated that SHO, Police Station Ashta was not ready to write down the FIR and therefore, she went to the Police Station Kotwali, District Sehore. However, such fact is not mentioned in the FIR, Ex.P/6. The incident took place at 5 p.m. According to the complainant, she went to the Police Station Ashta. Thereafter, she went to the Police Station Kotwali and lodged the FIR at about 10.15 p.m. Looking to the time consumed in going to Police Station Ashta and Police Station Kotwali, Sehore, it appears that a fictitious time of incident was given by the complainant to the police otherwise, it was not possible for the complainant and her companions to go to Ashta first after the incident then, to travel to Sehore in the same evening and to lodge the FIR at Police Station Kotwali, Sehore at about 10.15 p.m. Certainly, time of incident as mentioned by the complainant appears to be fictitious and it cannot be said that the FIR was lodged within time. It appears that the FIR was lodged with delay and the time of incident was shifted by the complainant according to her convenience to show that the FIR was lodged within time. 9. Gulab Bai and Anar Bai were examined as eye witnesses, Deva (P.W.4) and Sawant (P.W.5) have stated that they were informed by Gulab Bai about the incident. However, Gulab Bai and Anar Bai did not say anything about the threat given by the respondents. 9. Gulab Bai and Anar Bai were examined as eye witnesses, Deva (P.W.4) and Sawant (P.W.5) have stated that they were informed by Gulab Bai about the incident. However, Gulab Bai and Anar Bai did not say anything about the threat given by the respondents. Gulab Bai has stated that when she was trying to object the ploughing done by the respondent Sunil then, Sunil abused her with insulting words relating to her caste and told her to go away. However, such version of Gulab Bai was not corroborated by Anar Bai and therefore, it appears that to take advantage of caste, Gulab Bai has stated about such words told by the respondent Sunil on the basis of her caste. It is not proved beyond about that out of the respondents, the respondent Sunil abused the victims by such words. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from charge of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act. Learned counsel for the respondents has also taken a plea that the complainant could not prove her caste by any appropriate certificate. However, it is not required in the present case to discuss that submission in detail. Anar Bai and Gulab Bai did not say about any obscene words told by any of the respondents including the respondent Sunil and therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charge of offence under Section 294 of IPC. When the complainant Gulab Bai did not have possession of the property, prior to the incident then, it cannot be said that the respondents have destroyed the crop of Jawar or any crop of Jawar was sown by Gulab Bai or by her family in that field and therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the respondent Sunil or any other respondents have destroyed the crop of Jawar or caused any mischief to the complainant. Hence, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from charge of offence under Section 427 of IPC. 10. It appears that to get the possession of the suit property, several disputes took place between the parties and the complainant had lodged a false FIR to pressurize the respondents. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from all the charges appended against them. Conduct of the complainant and eye witnesses indicates that a false FIR was lodged against the respondents. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from all the charges appended against them. Conduct of the complainant and eye witnesses indicates that a false FIR was lodged against the respondents. Difference between the injuries found by the doctor and the alleged assault, without having any possession of the property claimed the destruction of previous crop against the respondents and to allege that the respondents abused them with obscene words relating to her caste etc., indicate that a false case has been created by the complainant, specially when the FIR was lodged against 4 persons and thereafter, eye witnesses Gulab Bai and Anar Bai concentrated only against the respondent Sunil. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from all the charges. There is no reason to interfere in the judgment of acquitted passed by the trial Court. There is no ground to accept the State appeal. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed having no basis. 11. The respondents are on bail. Their presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged. 12. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.