Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 237 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Gendalal

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 24.9.1999 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Panna in Special case No. 16/1999, whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charges of offence under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as "Special Act "). 2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 28.3.1999, at about 8 p.m., the prosecutrix (P.W.3) went out of her house to answer the call of nature at village Menha (Police Station Pawai, District Panna). When she was coming back, the respondent met her in the way and he offered a sum of Rs.100/- to have cohabitation with the prosecutrix. When the prosecutrix denied, he held the hands of the prosecutrix and tried to drag her towards a lonely area. In the meantime, on shouting of the prosecutrix, Vishram (P.W.5), brother-in-law of the prosecutrix, came to the spot and therefore, the respondent ran away from the spot. The prosecutrix came to her house and informed about the incident to her husband Sharan (P.W.4). The reputed citizens of the village prohibited the prosecutrix and her husband to lodge the FIR and therefore, FIR could not be lodged on the second day but, it was lodged on the third day i.e. on 30.3.1999. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court. 3. The respondent abjured his guilt. He took a plea that he was falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity caused for a dispute of land. Kosha Bai (D.W.1), mother of the respondent was examined as a defence witness. 4. Special Judge, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, acquitted the respondent from the aforesaid charges. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The prosecution has examined the prosecutrix (P.W.3) and Vishram (P.W.5) as eye witnesses. Vishram was brother-in-law of the prosecutrix. Both of them have stated that initially the respondent offered a sum of Rs.100/- to have cohabitation with the prosecutrix but, when she denied, the respondent held her breasts and her hands and tried to drag her. On her shouting, Vishram came to the spot and thereafter, the respondent ran away from the spot. Vishram was brother-in-law of the prosecutrix. Both of them have stated that initially the respondent offered a sum of Rs.100/- to have cohabitation with the prosecutrix but, when she denied, the respondent held her breasts and her hands and tried to drag her. On her shouting, Vishram came to the spot and thereafter, the respondent ran away from the spot. In the statement of the prosecutrix Munni Bai and the FIR, Ex.P/1 lodged by her, there are lot of material contradictions. The prosecutrix has claimed that on holding her hands, her bangles were broken and she sustained some injuries. Pieces of broken bangles were lying at the spot. However, no such story was found in the FIR, Ex.P/1 and her case diary statement, Ex.D/2. She has stated that the respondent held her hands and threw her on the ground. However, no such statement was given by her in her case diary statement. According to the FIR, on shouting of the prosecutrix, Vishram who came soon before the conclusion of the incident but, according to him when he reached the spot, the respondent had already ran away. However, he has claimed that he heard the offer of the respondent to the prosecutrix and he saw the respondent holding the hands of the prosecutrix. He has also stated that bangles of the prosecutrix were broken. There is a lot of contradictions between evidence of the witness Vishram and his case diary statement, Ex.D/2. Remaining portion of evidence of Vishram was nothing but, the facts told by the prosecutrix. 7. In the present case, the prosecutrix (P.W.3), her husband Sharan (P.W.4) and Vishram (P.W.5) has accepted that initially Sharan was cultivating the fields of Kosha Bai (D.W.1), mother of the respondent and thereafter, he encroached the field. The prosecutrix and her husband were pressurizing to get name of Sharan to be mutated on the land of Kosha Bai. Sharan has accepted in para 3 of his cross-examination that 3-4 months before he pressurized and told Kosha Bai and the respondent, to change the name on the land and to get his name mutated on the land. Hence, it is apparent that there was a dispute of ownership of land between the parties and the respondent could be implicated falsely on the basis of enmity. 8. Most important fact in the case is that the FIR was lodged with delay of 2 days. Hence, it is apparent that there was a dispute of ownership of land between the parties and the respondent could be implicated falsely on the basis of enmity. 8. Most important fact in the case is that the FIR was lodged with delay of 2 days. Sharan has stated that one Onkar Pandit stopped him to lodge the FIR and therefore, the FIR could not be lodged for the entire day. However, the name of such respected person of the village was not mentioned in the FIR. The incident took place at 8 p.m. in the night on 28.3.1999 and if some persons have stopped the prosecutrix and her husband to lodge the FIR on the next day then, FIR could be lodged on 30.3.1999 at early hours. However, it was lodged at 2 p.m. in the noon. The FIR could be lodged at the Police Station Pawai but, the prosecutrix and her husband went to lodge the FIR at Police Station AJAK, Panna. Under these circumstances, the pretext shown by the prosecutrix and her husband relating to delay in lodging the FIR is not acceptable. Delay in lodging the FIR creates a doubt in the entire prosecution story and therefore, the statement of the prosecutrix and her husband as well as brother-in-law Vishram cannot be relied. The trial Court has rightly gave the benefit of doubt to the respondent and hence, rightly acquitted him. 9. There is no substance in the State appeal and therefore, it cannot be accepted. Consequently, the State appeal filed against the respondent is hereby dismissed. 10. The respondent is on bail. His presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged. 11. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.