Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 279 (MP)

Pravesh Yadav v. State of M. P.

2025-04-17

DEVNARAYAN SINGH, VIVEK AGRAWAL

body2025
JUDGMENT Agarwal, J:- 1. Since these appeals are arising out of the same crime number and judgment, therefore, these appeals are heard analogously and are being decided by a common judgment. 2. These appeals under section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. have been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 7.8.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Damoh, District Damoh (M.P.) in Special Case No.200009/2016 whereby the appellant-Pravesh Yadav has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 3(2)(iv) of SC & ST (POA) Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Life with fine amount of Rs.500/- and section 429 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine amount of Rs.500/- with default stipulations. The appellants-Bhagwan Das @ Bhagola Adiwasi and Param @ Malla Adiwasi in connected appeal have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 436/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Life with the fine amount of Rs.500/- each and section 429 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine amount of Rs.500/- each with default stipulations. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent. The prosecution story is that Lattu Adiwasi (PW-8) made a report that at about 08 days prior to this incident which took place on 6.10.2015. Grass grown on the boundaries of the field was put to fire but he could prevent that fire as a result of which he did not proceed against the accused persons. Thereafter, on 6.10.2015 at about 10:00 pm, Bhagola Adiwasi and Param Adiwasi called Raju Yadav (absconding) and Pravesh Yadav and abused them thereafter exhorted that his house be put on fire as a result of which Bhagola Adiwasi and Param Adiwasi took a mashal and Raju and Pravesh had taken kerosene oil in a can and had put house of Lattu Adiwasi on fire as a result of which all the household goods including the stored grains got burnt. Besides this, two she goats and one he goat also got burnt and died. 4. It is submitted that the whole story of the prosecution is concocted and is result of old enmity. It is pointed out that incident took place on 6.10.2015. Besides this, two she goats and one he goat also got burnt and died. 4. It is submitted that the whole story of the prosecution is concocted and is result of old enmity. It is pointed out that incident took place on 6.10.2015. Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-15) was recorded on 7.10.2015 at 15:30 hours. It is submitted that FIR (Ex.P-16) was lodged on 7.10.2015 at about 21:37 hours. It is submitted that Dehati Nalishi and FIR do not corroborate with the stand taken by Lattu Adiwasi (PW-8) s/o Nandu Gond who is author of both the documents. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the objector have opposed the prayer and supports the judgment of the trial Court, submitting that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence, hence, no interference is called for. There is no substances in these appeals, hence, the appeals be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is pointed out that Lattu Adiwasi (PW-8) cited Santosh Gond (PW-2) as an eye-witness. He turned hostile. Gunjan Bai (PW-3), too, turned hostile and she admits that on the next day of the incident, she came to know that house of Lattu Adiwasi was put on fire as a result of which his goats got burnt. 8. Lattu Adiwasi (PW-8) has though supported the prosecution case but in para no.6 of his cross-examination, he has stated that on seeing the accused persons, he had ran towards the Police Station. On reaching Police Station, he had recorded the report. He further states that report was not read over to him. He was accompanied with his sister Gunjan Bai (PW-3), Santosh Gond (PW-2) and Sumatrani (PW-9). He admitted that he could not state that as to what was the extent of loss in his house because he is not staying in his village since the date of the incident. In para No.7 of his crossexamination, he has further stated that there were about 15 teak plants, one Chebla (Palash) and mango tree in his agricultural field which measures about 2 acres. 9. Prior to that in para No.5 of his cross-examination, he has given the extent of loss of his grains to the extent of 20 bags of urad, 5 bags of moong, 3 bags of chana and 9 bags of wheat. 10. 9. Prior to that in para No.5 of his cross-examination, he has given the extent of loss of his grains to the extent of 20 bags of urad, 5 bags of moong, 3 bags of chana and 9 bags of wheat. 10. Sumatrani (PW-9) is the wife of Lattu Adiwasi (PW-8). She has admitted in her cross-examination that they had visited the Police Station in night for recording their report, but report (Ex.P-15), i.e. Dehati Nalishi, was recorded on the next day at about 3:30 pm defies the statements of Lattu Adiwasi (PW-8) and Sumatrani (PW-9). 11. As far as quantity of grains which got damaged in fire is concerned, there are also contradictions inasmuch as Sumatrani (PW-9) stated that there was 1 bag of urad, 2 bags of chana, 4 bags of wheat, 2 bags of moong and 1 bag of tili which got burnt. However, she stated that there are about 10-25 teak trees and except for teak trees, there is no other tree grown on their fields. 12. This contradiction in regard to the facts stated by Lattu Adiwasi (PW-8) and Sumatrani (PW-9) renders the prosecution story doubtful. 13. R.B. Pandey (PW-11) admitted that on 7.10.2015, he was posted as A.S.I. at Police Chowki Bandakpur of Police Station Hindoria. At about 3:30 pm, Lattu s/o Nandu had visited Police Chowki Bandakpur to report the matter. He had lodged report against Bhagola, Param, Raju and Pravesh. He had informed that on 6.10.2015 at about 10:00 pm, Bhagola, Param, Raju and Pravesh had put his house on fire which resulted in loss of goods besides live stock. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he had not read over the Dehati Nalishi. He also admitted that before recording the Dehati Nalishi or First Information Report, he had not visited the place of the incident. He further admits that he had received intimation about the incident at about 10:00 am on the next day. He admits that he cannot say as to when he had gone to the place of the incident after receiving information at 10:00 am. 14. D.K. Dixit (PW-6) retired Dy. S.P., who had investigated the matter, admitted that on 9.10.2015, he had visited the place of the incident and prepared spot map (Ex.P-9). He states that on the spot map, Lattu had put his thumb impression. 14. D.K. Dixit (PW-6) retired Dy. S.P., who had investigated the matter, admitted that on 9.10.2015, he had visited the place of the incident and prepared spot map (Ex.P-9). He states that on the spot map, Lattu had put his thumb impression. This statement is contrary to Lattu who stated in his cross-examination that he had never visited the place of the incident after his house was put on fire. Thus, spot map being prepared at the place of the incident becomes doubtful. He has also admitted that he had prepared a damage panchnama (Ex.P-10) which contains the signature of Lattu but in his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not made mention of the extent of damage in the said panchnama (Ex.P-10). 15. D.K. Dixit (PW-6) further admitted that he had not made recovery of any of the burnt articles. He further admitted that he had not made any mention of the circumstances under which two she goats and one he goat were found to be burnt. He further admitted that in spot map (Ex.P-9), he has not mentioned as to whose house was shown in the spot map. He has denied the suggestion that he had not interrogated any of the witnesses at village Sugarkhor Tola and stated that he had recorded the statements of Santosh Adiwasi, Raghuvar and Uttam. However, he admits that none of the statements are in his handwriting and there is no mention of the place and time of recording such statements. 16. Thus, when the evidence is examined, then firstly Santosh Gond (PW-2) so called eye-witness has turned hostile. He has not supported the prosecution case. 17. Dr. Vipin Bihari Shukla (PW-1) has stated that he had carried out post mortem on 7.10.2015 whereas D.K. Dixit (PW-6) has stated that he had prepared Nukshani Panchnama on 9.10.2015, in which he had shown loss of 2 she goats and 1 he goat but when the post mortem was conducted on 7.10.2015, then it is evident that these goats were not available at the place of the incident on 9.10.2015, when damage panchnama was prepared. 18. Firstly presence of the complainant is doubtful as to the presence of the appellants and secondly his conduct that if appellants had put his house on fire then his natural conduct would have been to untie the animals so that they would have ran away for their lives. 18. Firstly presence of the complainant is doubtful as to the presence of the appellants and secondly his conduct that if appellants had put his house on fire then his natural conduct would have been to untie the animals so that they would have ran away for their lives. There are no signs of conflict also available to demonstrate or circumstantially prove the presence of the complainant at the place of the incident. Even it is not the case of the prosecution that the appellants were armed with deadly weapons or any firearm so to cause threat to the life of the complainant and his family members. 19. Gunjan Bai (PW-3) is a hearsay witness. She has not supported the prosecution case. The only two persons who have supported the prosecution case are Lattu Adiwasi (PW-8) and Sumatrani (PW-9) who are husband and wife. However, there are material contradictions in their evidence which does not inspire confidence as to their statements. Lattu Adiwasi (PW-8) after having stated that he had seen the incident in his cross-examination admitted that he had run away towards Police Station after seeing the accused persons. He also stated that his wife Sumatrani (PW-9) accompanied him towards Police Station. Thus, it is evident that Lattu Adiwasi (PW-8) and Sumatrani (PW-9) are not the eye-witnesses to the incident and therefore, conviction merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures cannot be upheld inasmuch as there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and merely on the basis of old enmity taking names of certain persons with whom the complainant was having enmity is not a sufficient circumstance to hold appellants' guilty. In absence of eye-witness account, prosecution was obliged to complete the chain of circumstances to point out that apart from the appellants no body else can be said to have caused that incident, as a result of which house and property of the complainant was lost, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment of conviction having been passed on surmises and conjectures deserves to be set aside and is set aside. The appeals are allowed. 20. The case property be disposed of in terms of the orders of the trial Court. 21. Record of the trial Court be sent back.