Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 556 (MP)

Pushpraj Singh v. State of M. P.

2015-05-07

N.K.GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : N.K. Gupta, J. 1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 20.4.1998 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rewa in Special Case No. 22/1997 whereby the appellant has been convicted of offence under Section 354 of IPC read with Section3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special Act') and Section323 of IPC and sentenced to six months' RI with fine of Rs. 200/- for each count. In lieu of payment of fine, default sentence was also imposed. 2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 28.2.1997 at about 2:00 PM the prosecutrix (PW-1) was going to the field of his father Bacholiya (PW-2) to provide him a tiffin at Village Ragoli (Police Station Semariya District Rewa). In the way the appellant held her hand with bad intention. She shouted and ran to her grand-father Rugan (PW-3). On shouting of Rugan, the appellant assaulted him by a stick causing various injuries. Shankar Kol and Ramshiromani also came to save the victim Rugan, then the appellant also assaulted him. Thereafter the appellant ran away. An FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix at about 1:30 PM on 1.3.1997 at Police Station Semariya. The victim Rugan was sent for his medico legal examination. Dr. Prakash Singh Parihar (PW-5) examined the victim Rugan and gave his report Ex.P-7. He found three simple injuries to the victim Rugan. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Special Court. 3. The appellant-accused abjured his guilt. He took a plea that he was falsely implicated in the matter due to political enmity. In defence Rahis Singh Chandra Singh (DW-1) was examined. 4. The Special Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted and sentenced the present appellant as mentioned above. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecutrix and her relatives did not file any caste certificate in favour of the prosecutrix to show that she was a member of Scheduled Tribe. In this context, a reliance is placed on the judgment passed by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of 'Shankarlal Vs. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecutrix and her relatives did not file any caste certificate in favour of the prosecutrix to show that she was a member of Scheduled Tribe. In this context, a reliance is placed on the judgment passed by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of 'Shankarlal Vs. State of M.P.' [ 2005(1) MPLJ 449 ], in which it is held that caste of the complainant is to be proved by the written certificate issued by the Competent Officer. In the presence case, no such certificate has been filed, and therefore it was not proved beyond doubt that the prosecutrix was a member of Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste. Consequently, the appellant could not be convicted of offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Special Act. However, the appellant has been convicted of offence under Section 354 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(xi) of the Special Act, and therefore the merits of the case may be examined for the offence under Section 354 of IPC. 7. The prosecutrix (PW-1) and Rugan (PW-3) have stated that the appellant held the hand of the prosecutrix, then the prosecutrix ran away and came to Rugan, who was sitting in front of his house. Thereafter the appellant assaulted the victim Rugan by a stick causing various injuries. Rugan had a complaint that due to that assault, his left hand was broken, his waist was also broken and now he is suffering from hard of hearing. However, Dr. Prakash Singh Parihar (PW-5) found three simple injuries to the victim Rugan, which could be caused due to fall. Bacholiya (PW-2), father of the prosecutrix has stated that he was intimated about the crime and he came to his house and took his father to SP Rewa, but thereafter he was directed to go to police station Semariya, therefore the FIR Ex.P-1 was lodged. In the present case, it is mentioned in the FIR Ex.P-1 that Shankar, Munda etc. had saved the prosecutrix and they were the eyewitnesses in the case. However, it appears that Shankar was appeared before the trial Court and he was given up, whereas there was no name of Munda in the list of witnesses of the charge sheet filed before the court. Sarpanch Mangleshwar Singh (PW-4) was examined as eye-witness, but he did not support the prosecution story. However, it appears that Shankar was appeared before the trial Court and he was given up, whereas there was no name of Munda in the list of witnesses of the charge sheet filed before the court. Sarpanch Mangleshwar Singh (PW-4) was examined as eye-witness, but he did not support the prosecution story. The defence witness Harish Chandra Singh (DW-1) has stated that there was enmity between the appellant and Sugriv Singh. Sugriv Singh had a tractor and the prosecutrix and her father were working on that tractor of Sugriv Singh. They were taken to the various places to do job of labourer and the appellant was falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity between Sugriv Singh and the appellant. 8. In this context, the prosecutrix (PW-1) has accepted that she was working on a tractor of Sugriv Singh. She has accepted in her cross examination that she had lodged an FIR as told by Rajmani Patel. In para 6 of her statement she has stated that no incident took place with her and she had lodged an FIR as told by Rahis Singh, a colleague of Sugriv Singh. Again in para 8 of her cross examination, she has accepted that she had lodged an FIR as told by Rahish Singh and Sugriv Singh. However, in para 9 she has stated that the appellant caused an accident and the FIR was correct, though it was dictated by Sugriv Singh at the Police Station, and she had appended her thumb impression on the FIR. Rugan (PW-3) has accepted that he is unable to see anything from a distance. He is unable to see anything for last 8-10 years. He was unable to see the things of his side. When child of the house got him to be seated at a particular place, he could not see, who was sitting near him. He was an old person of 75 years of age. He has also accepted that the prosecutrix and her father Bacholiya were working with Sugriv Singh and Sugriv Singh and Rahis Singh had provided a jeep to take these persons to Rewa. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that there was an enmity between the appellant with Sugriv Singh & Rahis Singh. He has also accepted that the prosecutrix and her father Bacholiya were working with Sugriv Singh and Sugriv Singh and Rahis Singh had provided a jeep to take these persons to Rewa. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that there was an enmity between the appellant with Sugriv Singh & Rahis Singh. The enmity is double edged weapon so that a person can be falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity or he can commit a crime due to enmity. Therefore, the evidence of the prosecutrix and other eye-witnesses should be considered with care. 9. In the present case, Mangleshwar Singh (PW-4), who was the Sarpanch has also turned hostile. The prosecutrix (PW-1) and Rugan (PW-3) have stated about the instigation of Sugriv Singh and Rahis Singh in lodging the FIR. According to these witnesses, Bacholiya took them to SP Rewa and they were returned from SP Rewa to lodge an FIR at Police Station Semariya. If that fact was correct, then certainly an old person like Rugan, who was taken to SP Rewa must have referred for his medico legal examination at any Government Hospital at Rewa. However, no medical examination of Rugan took place at Rewa, which indicates that the witnesses are giving a false explanation, because the FIR was lodged with delay. The incident took place on 28.2.1997 at about 2:00 PM and the FIR should be lodged within one hour, whereas the FIR Ex.P-1 was lodged on 1.3.1997 at about 1:30 PM. The explanation given by the witnesses relating to delay in lodging the FIR Ex.P-1 is not acceptable, otherwise it appears that the FIR was lodged with due deliberations and Sugriv and Rahis Singh have framed the case against the appellant. Therefore, the FIR Ex.P-1 cannot be treated as a corroborative piece of evidence to the statements of the prosecutrix and the victim Rugan. 10. Rugan was unable to see anything, and therefore he could not state as who assaulted him. If he would have assaulted by a stick in forceful manner as stated by him and the prosecutrix, then various rod marks should have been received by him at various places of the body, whereas Dr. Prakash Singh Parihar (PW-5) in his report Ex.P-7 has found three simple injuries to victim Rugan, which could be caused, if Rugan would have fallen on earth while he was taken in movement. Prakash Singh Parihar (PW-5) in his report Ex.P-7 has found three simple injuries to victim Rugan, which could be caused, if Rugan would have fallen on earth while he was taken in movement. Victim Rugan was almost a blind person, and therefore he could have fallen while his movement, however nature of the injuries does not match to the fact that the appellant assaulted him by a stick. Under these circumstances, the medical report Ex.P-7 proved by Dr. Prakash Singh Parihar cannot be said to be a corroborative piece of evidence to the evidence of the prosecutrix and the victim Rugan. 11. If the evidence of the prosecutrix is examined, then she has accepted that the FIR was dictated by Sugriv Singh and she appended her thumb impression on it. She has also accepted that no incident took place with her and again she took a somersault that the appellant caused an incident as stated by her in her examination-in-chief. The testimony of the prosecutrix is of vibrating nature. Rugan could not see anyone, and therefore he could not say definitely that the appellant held the hand of the prosecutrix. If the appellant had a bad intention on the prosecutrix, then it was not possible for him to hold the hand of the prosecutrix in a broad daylight before the witnesses. If he had held the hand of the prosecutrix with bad intention, then the prosecutrix could not get her hand free unless the witnesses would have intervened. If the witnesses came to the spot, then as to why none of the independent witness is examined to corroborate the story of the prosecution. On the contrary, Sarpanch Mangleshwar Singh (PW-4) has turned hostile and other eye-witness Shankar Kol was given up. Under such circumstances, the allegation made by the prosecutrix appears to be unnatural and the possibility cannot be ruled that a false FIR has been lodged on behalf of the prosecutrix to implicate the appellant by Sugriv Singh due to enmity with the appellant. When a doubt is created, then benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused. 12. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the prosecutrix and the victim Rugan could not prove beyond doubt that the appellant held the hand of the prosecutrix or outraged the modesty by using any criminal force. When a doubt is created, then benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused. 12. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the prosecutrix and the victim Rugan could not prove beyond doubt that the appellant held the hand of the prosecutrix or outraged the modesty by using any criminal force. It is not proved beyond doubt that the appellant was the person, who assaulted the victim Rugan by a stick, and therefore the appellant cannot be convicted of offence under Section 354 or 323 of IPC. The trial Court has committed an error of law in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences. When the appellant cannot be convicted of offence under Section 354 of IPC, then on the merits he cannot be convicted of offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Special Act. Under such circumstances, the present appeal filed by the appellant appears to be acceptable. Consequently, it is hereby accepted. His conviction and sentence of offence under Sections 323, 354 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are hereby set aside. He is acquitted from the aforesaid charges. He would be entitled to get the fine amount back, if he has already deposited the same before the trial Court. 13. At present the appellant is on bail, and his presence is no more required, therefore it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged. 14. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information and compliance.