Virendra Kumar Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6525 Chatt

                                                                  NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                      Criminal Revision No.10 of 2014
      Virendra Kumar Sharma S/o Ramanand Sharma, Aged About 47
       Years, R/o Parsadajoshi, P.S. Rajim, Civil And Revenue District-
       Gariyaband, C.G.
                                                           ---- Applicant
                                 Versus
      State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : P.S. Rajim, Civil And Revenue
       District- Gariyaband, C.G.
                                                      ---- Non-applicant

      For Applicant             - Mr. Himank Saluja, Advocate along with
                                  Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate.
      For State/Non-applicant - Mr. Sudhir Sahu, Panel Lawyer.

          S.B.:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
                           Order On Board

02-11-2022


Heard.

  1.

On Monday i.e. 01.11.2022, this case was called out for hearing

but there was no representation on behalf of original counsel. On

Tuesday i.e. on 02.11.2022 also there was no representation,

therefore, Mr. Himank Saluja, Advocate was requested to appear

and argue in this case. Today when the matter is taken up for

hearing, Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr.

Shikhar Sharma, joined Mr. Himank Saluja.

2. This Criminal Revision is filed against the judgment passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, C.G. in Criminal Appeal

No.22/2013 dated 30.12.2013, whereby the appeal preferred by

the applicant has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence recorded by the learned trial Court in

Criminal Case No.406/2007 dated 19.07.2013, whereby the

applicant has been convicted under Sections 294, 506-I, 186, 353

of Indian Penal Code and sentenced with R.I. for 02 months and

fine of Rs.200/-, R.I. for 06 months and fine of Rs.200/-, R.I. for 02

months and fine of Rs.200/- and R.I. for 06 months and fine of

Rs.200/-, respectively, with default stipulations has been affirmed.

3. The case of the prosecution is that complainant- Narayan Singh

Thakur lodged a written complaint on 14.02.2002 to the effect that

on 16.01.2002, when he was discharging his duty in the office of

Tehsildar, Rajim, the present applicant came there at about 11:30

am and demanded 'Rin Pustika' (ऋण पपस ससकक) and torn some

documents. When the complainant stopped the applicant from

doing so, he abused him using filthy language and assaulted too. It

is further stated that at the time of incident, Ram Kumar Singh,

Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mahesh Yadav, Advocate, Ku.

Swarnlata Sharma, Advocate and Sukhiya Bai, Laxman, Rajesh

etc. were present. On such complaint the police registered Crime

No.60/2002 for offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 186

and 353 of the I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, police

filed charge-sheet. The learned trial Court framed charges for

offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 186 and 353 of the

I.P.C. The applicant abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty.

4. The prosecution exhibited 04 documents and examined total 08

witnesses to prove the guilt of the applicant whereas no defence

witness was examined by the applicant. The statement under

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the applicant was recorded. The

learned trial Court after appreciating the documentary as well as oral evidence, convicted and sentenced the present applicant as

mentioned in the opening paragraph.

5. The applicant preferred appeal before the Sessions Court and

same has been dismissed vide judgment dated 30.12.2013,

therein affirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the

learned trial Court.

6. Learned counsels for the applicant submits that (i) date of incident

is 16.01.2002, whereas F.I.R. was lodged on 14.02.2002 and thus

there is delay of about 01 month and same has not been explained

by the prosecution. (ii) The Investigating Officer has not been

examined, (iii) the documents which have been alleged to be torn

by the present applicant have not been seized and documents are

not part of the record, (iv) though there is allegation of assault but

the complainant has not been medically examined, (v) there are

omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses. Both the counsels appearing for applicant pray for

acquittal of the present applicant.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that

there are 07 eye witnesses, who have supported the case of the

prosecution. Two Courts below have recorded concurrent finding

and there is no scope of interference by this Court while exercising

revisionary jurisdiction.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

9. From the record, it appears that written complaint was made to the

Tehsildar by the complainant on 16.01.2002 itself vide Ex.P/1.

Thereafter on 15.02.2002, a letter was addressed to the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Rajim, District- Gariyaband by the

complainant vide Ex.P/3. Though the F.I.R. was registered on

14.02.2002 but same has not been exhibited by the prosecution

and it has not been proved by its author. In the record, there are

only 02 complaints made by complainant- Narayan Singh Thakur

(P.W.-1), one is addressed to Tehsildar and another one is

addressed to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajim, but there was

no complaint before the Police Station. Narayan Singh Thakur

(P.W.-1) has stated that on the date of incident, the present

applicant came and demanded 'Rin Pustika' ( ऋण पपस ससकक ) and in

turn he informed the applicant that there is no such 'Rin Pustika',

(ऋण पपस ससकक ) thereafter, the present applicant torn some pages

from the file and assaulted him and at that time many Advocates

and litigants were present there. In Paragraph No.11 of the cross-

examination, he has admitted that he had made a complaint to

Judicial Magistrate First Class on 15.02.2002 but he has not stated

anywhere that any complaint was made by him before the Police

Station.

10. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate (P.W.-2), Ram Kumar

Singh, Peon (P.W.-3), Mahesh Yadav, Advocate (P.W.-4) and Ku.

Swarnlata Sharma, Advocate (P.W.-5) have supported the case.

Laxman (P.W.-6), who is independent witness and who was

present at the time of incident has stated that there was exchange

of hot words between the applicant and the complainant but he

has not stated anything about the assault or deterrence in

discharge of the public function. Sukhiya Bai (P.W.-7) in paragraph 2 of her cross-examination has stated that she was tutored by the

complainant- Narayan Singh Thakur (P.W.-1) and on his behest,

she has made false allegation against the present applicant. K.K.

Behar, Deputy Collector (P.W.-8) has stated that a complaint was

made by the complainant before the Tehsildar and same was

referred to the Police Station by him, which is a document Ex.P/1.

11.From the record, it appears that the prosecution has not explained

the delay part i.e. about 28 days in lodging F.I.R. Most of the

witnesses are Advocates, who are practising there, therefore, it

cannot be presumed that they will make statement against

employee of the Tehsil. The interesting part of the prosecution

story is that the F.I.R. has not been exhibited and the author of

same i.e. investigating Officer has not been examined and he has

not proved the contents of the F.I.R. The documents which have

been alleged to be torn by the present applicant have not been

seized by the prosecution.

12. Considering the above lacunae in the prosecution case, the

conviction of the present applicant for the aforesaid charges can't

be sustained. Consequently, conviction of applicant is set aside.

The applicant is acquitted and the fine amount if any deposited by

the present applicant be refunded to him and his bail bonds stand

discharged.

Sd/-

                                             (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Monika                                               Judge