Jagat Singh Thakur vs The State Of M.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 7277 MP

                                     1
                                                      Cr.A. No.1290/1998



THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
                   Criminal Appeal No.1290/1998
                   Jagat Singh Thakur @ Munna
                                  Versus
                     State of Madhya Pradesh

 Date of Order            11.11.2021
 Bench Constituted        Single Bench
 Order delivered by       Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dwivedi
 Whether approved         ---
 for reporting
 Name of counsel for For appellant: Mr. Abhay Gupta,
 parties             Amicus Curiae.
                     For Respondent/State: Mr. Punit Shroti,

Panel Lawyer.

 Law laid down            ---
 Significant Para Nos. ---

                         (J U D G M E N T)
                                (11.11.2021)

This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises out of the judgment dated 21.04.1998 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Sessions Trial No.73/1998 whereby the appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to suffer S.I. for one year with fine of Rs.500/- and in default S.I. for two months. The appellant was also found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to deposit fine of Rs.100/- and in default S.I. for fifteen days.

2. As per the facts of the case, the appellant at the relevant point of time was holding the post of Sarpanch in Gram Panchayat Imalia and during the aforesaid period, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was sanctioned from the MLA quota for

Cr.A. No.1290/1998

construction of a road falling in the said panchayat.

(2.1) After completion of entire construction work of the road, the appellant in the capacity of Sarpanch had submitted a bill for payment in the office of Chief Executive Officer Rehli where the complainant was working in the post of Clerk. As per the appellant, the complainant in lieu of process of bill had demanded a bribe of Rs.500/- against which the appellant had lodged a report at Police Station Rehli on 05.05.1997.

(2.2) As per the appellant, in order to save himself, the Complainant had also lodged an FIR against the appellant on 05.05.1997 at Police Station Rehli upon which cognizance was taken and the appellant was prosecuted.

(2.3) Thereafter, the trial Court had examined as many as three witnesses who alleged to have seen the incident, but none of them had supported the version of the complainant, despite that the trial Court relying upon the statement of the complainant had convicted the appellant.

3. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that from perusal of the judgment passed by the trial Court, it can easily be gathered that the parties were ready to get the matter compromised, but that request was rejected by the trial Court saying that the offence under which the appellant/accused was charged, is not compoundable. He urged that as per the witnesses adduced by the prosecution and the charges levelled, offence under Section 333 of the IPC is not made out against the appellant because no grievous hurt was caused by the appellant to the complainant. He further submits that in the statements of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution,

Cr.A. No.1290/1998

nobody had said that it was the appellant/accused who caused the injury to the complainant, but only on the basis of the statement of the complainant, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment and convicted the appellant.

4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the submissions made by learned Amicus Curiae and drawn attention of this Court towards paragraph-13 of the judgment saying that while convicting the appellant/accused, the trial Court had rightly considered the statements of the witnesses especially the statement of the complainant. He further submits that so far as the other witnesses are concerned, they were the residents of the same area where the accused was holding the post of Sarpanch, therefore, under his influence, they in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, had not supported the case of the prosecution.

5. Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the statements of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution so also the statement of the complainant, it is clear that the complainant himself had stated before the trial Court that he had no grievance with the appellant, therefore, he tried to settle the matter and moved an application for getting the same compromised, but that was rejected by the trial Court. However, from perusal of the statements of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution, it is also clear that they neither supported the case of prosecution nor the statement of the complainant corroborating that it was the appellant who caused injury to the complainant. That apart, no witness had said that the injury sustained by the complainant was grievous in nature. For constituting an offence there must be ingredients available on record. Since the appellant has been convicted under Section 333 of the IPC, therefore, it is apt to see the provision of said section which

Cr.A. No.1290/1998

reads as under:-

"333. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty.--Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

From perusal of aforesaid provision and the statements adduced by the prosecution, I find substance in the submission made by learned Amicus Curaie that the no case of Section 333 of the IPC is made out against the appellant.

6. Even otherwise, the matter was tried to settle and an application for getting the same compromised was moved but that was rejected by the trial Court saying that the offence under which the appellant is being tried, is not compoundable. However, in my opinion, the said finding of the trial Court was not proper for the reason that while rejecting the application, the trial Court had ignored the material aspect of the matter that no case of Section 333 of the IPC is made out against the appellant as the witnesses in their statements had not supported the case of prosecution nor even the statement of the complainant and as such, the judgment dated 21.04.1998 passed by the trial Court in Sessions Trial No.73/1998 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, it is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled.

7. Ex consequntia, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Devashish

DEVASHISH MISHRA 2021.11.15 17:50:08 +05'30'