Chattisgarh High Court
Shivendra Pratap Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 June, 2024
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 451 of 2012
Shivendra Pratap Singh, S/o Late. Shri S.N. Singh, aged 41 years, R/o
Old High Court Road, Diprapara, P.S. City Kotwali, Distt. Bilaspur C.G.
----Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur, C.G.
----Non-applicant
For Applicant Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate.
For State Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Order on Board
19/06/2024
Heard.
1.
The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
16.05.2012 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge,
Bilaspur, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No. 32/2012, whereby the applicant
has been convicted under Section 294 of Indian Penal Code and
sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine
amount to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.06.2008 at about 6:55
pm, while the complainant- M.K. Tiwari was returning to his home, on
way near the house of one S.N. Singh, DSP, the present applicant
came on motorcycle, stopped the complainant, caught hold of his
hand and abused him filthily and at same time, brother of the applicant
came to the spot and took the applicant with him. The said incident
was witnessed by one Bhanu and Manish. Thereafter, the matter was
reported to the police station Bilaspur where FIR (Ex.P-1) against the
applicant under Sections 294 and 341 of IPC was lodged.
3. During investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded and
after completion of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 294 &
341 of IPC has been filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Bilaspur, C.G. against the applicant. The accused/applicant
abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.
4. The Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, convicted the applicant for the offence under Sections 294
& 341 of IPC and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.500/- & Rs.1,000/-
respectively and in default of payment of fine amount to undergo
simple imprisonment for 5 & 10 days respectively vide its judgment
dated 16.12.2011 passed in Criminal Case No. 55/2010. The said
judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however,
the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 16.05.2012 has acquitted the
applicant for the offence under Section 341 of IPC on the basis of
benefit of doubt, while upholding the conviction under Section 294 of
IPC with fine and default sentence. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution has
utterly failed to prove the case against the applicant beyond
reasonable doubt and that the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate
Court were not justified in convicting and sentencing the applicant for
the aforesaid offence. He further submits that due to departmental
dispute between the complainant/PW-1 M.K. Tiwari and father of the
accused, present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.
He also submits that Bhanu and Manish, who are said to be the eye-
witnesses to the incident, have also not been examined by the
prosecution. He also submits that though the Court of JMFC has
convicted the applicant for the offence under Sections 294 and 341 of
IPC, but in appeal, Appellate Court has acquitted the applicant for the
offence under Section 341 of IPC on the basis of benefit of doubt and
convicted him for the offence under Section 294 of IPC on the same
set of evidence, which is contrary to law. Therefore, the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserves to be set aside
and the applicant be acquitted of the aforesaid charge.
6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel, while supporting the
impugned judgment, submits that conviction and sentence of the
accused/applicant are in accordance with law and there is no illegality
or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record available with utmost circumspection.
8. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined only two
witnesses i.e. PW-1 complainant- M.K. Tiwari and PW-2 Padumnath
Gupta, Assistant Sub-Inspector. PW-1 Complainant- M.K. Tiwari has
stated in his statement that on 24.06.2008 at about 7:00 pm, while he
was going for a walk, at that time, present applicant came there,
caught hold of his hand and abused him in filthy language. Hearing
this, son of complainant- Manish Tiwari and one Bhanu came there
and tried to intervene the matter and at the same time, younger
brother of applicant came there and took the applicant with him. He
has also stated that at the time of incident, Manish and Bhanu were
present. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that he and father
of the applicant were working in the same department and there was
some departmental dispute between them. He has also denied that
due to previous enmity between him and father of the applicant, he
has falsely implicated the applicant in this case.
9. PW-2 Padumnath Gupta, ASI, has stated that on the complaint of
complainant-PW-1 M.K. Tiwari, he has lodged the FIR (Ex.P-1). In
cross-examination at para 3, he has admitted that applicant had not
written in the FIR (Ex.P-1) that on the date of incident, applicant
forcibly stopped him or did not allow him to walk on the road, but he
(PW-1) himself stayed on the spot. This witness has also admitted that
Manish and Bhanu were named as a witness to the incident.
10. From perusal of the above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are
material contradictions and omissions in the statement of complainant /
PW-1 M.K. Tiwari and the evidence of complainant / PW-1 does not
corroborate with the other evidence available on record. Further, in the
FIR (Ex.P-1), it is mentioned that on the date of incident, applicant
came to the spot by motorcycle, but the same fact has not been stated
by the complainant/PW-1 in his statement. Moreover, perusal of above
evidence would also show that due to previous enmity / department
dispute between the applicant and the father of the applicant, the
relation between the applicant and complainant/PW-1 were not good.
Furthermore, Manish and Bhanu, who are said to be the eye-witnesses
to the incident, have not been examined by the prosecution for the
reasons best known to it and that spot map has also not been prepared
by the prosecution. It is pertinent to mention here that on the same set
of evidence, Appellate Court has acquitted the applicant for the offence
under Section 341 of IPC. The burden lies upon the prosecution to
prove its case by adducing cogent and clinching evidence, but the
prosecution has failed to do so. In that view of the matter, I am of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt and the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate
Court were not justified in convicting and sentencing the applicant for
the aforesaid offence, as such, the applicant is entitled to be acquitted
of the charge under Section 294 of IPC on the basis of benefit of doubt.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the CRR is allowed. The impugned
judgments of conviction and order of sentence are liable to be and are
hereby set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the charge framed
against him by extending him the benefit of doubt.
12. It is reported that the applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are not
discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a
further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.
13. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this
order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge
Akhilesh
