Sourabh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7759 MP

                              1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
               Criminal Revision No.2874/2021
                  Saurabh Vs. State of M.P.

Gwalior, Dated:24-11-2021

      Smt. Uma Kushwah, Advocate for applicant.

      Shri R.K. Awathi, Advocate for the respondent/State.

This Criminal Revision under Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has

been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 29/10/2021

passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior

in Criminal Appeal No.47/2017, thereby affirming the judgment and

sentence dated 8/3/2017 passed by JMFC, Dabra, District Gwalior in

Criminal Case No.1542/2015, by which the applicant has been

convicted under Sections 332 and 353 of IPC and sentenced under

Section 332 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months

and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment

of two months.

2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present Criminal

Revision in short are that on 17/12/2015 the complainant Bahadur

Singh was posted as Gateman at Gate No.405 situated in Antri

Anantpaith Kalyani village. The railway gate was closed and it is

alleged that at that time the applicant came there on his tractor and

insisted that the complainant should open the gate and also started

extending a threat. Thereafter, the complainant after obtaining

permission from the senior officers opened the gate and the applicant

passed through the gate alongwith his tractor. After crossing the gate,

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.2874/2021 Saurabh Vs. State of M.P.

it is alleged that the applicant came back on his feet and started

abusing the complainant and when the complainant objected to it,

then the accused took out a knife and attacked on the complainant, as

a result, the complainant sustained an injury on his thumb. Further,

the applicant had also given a teeth bite on the left ear of the

complainant and after extending a threat to the life of the

complainant, the applicant ran away. Accordingly, on the report

lodged by the complainant, the police registered a crime in FIR

No.180/2015 for offence under Sections 294, 353, 332, 324, 506

Part-II of IPC.

3. The Trial Court by order dated 3/2/2016 framed charges under

Sections 294, 353 or in the alternative 332, 324, 506 Part-II of IPC.

4. The applicant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.

5. The prosecution examined Bahadur Singh Meena (PW-1),

Bhan Singh (PW-2), Ramnaresh Bhadoriya (PW-3), Sanjay (PW-4),

Indravikram Singh Chauhan (PW-5) and Dr. T.N. Soni (PW-6).

6. The applicant examined one Somveer Singh Rana (DW-1) in

his defence.

7. The Trial Court by judgment dated 8/3/2017 convicted the

applicant for offence under Sections 332 and 353 of IPC and

acquitted him for offence under Sections 294, 324, 506 Part II of IPC.

Since offence under Section 353 of IPC is a lesser offence to Section

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.2874/2021 Saurabh Vs. State of M.P.

332 of IPC, therefore, no separate sentence was awarded for offence

under Section 353 of IPC.

8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and sentence passed by the

Courts below, the applicant preferred an appeal, which too has been

dismissed by judgment dated 29/10/2021 passed by Second

Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in Criminal

Appeal No.47/2017.

9. Challenging the judgment passed by the Courts below, it is

submitted by the counsel for the applicant that although the

complainant is a Railway employee, but since the incident took place

on the question of opening of railway gate, therefore, only the

Railway Magistrate had jurisdiction to try the offence. It is further

submitted that the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence

available on record in proper manner.

10. Per contra, the revision is vehemently opposed by the counsel

for the State. It is submitted that both the Courts below after

appreciating the evidence has given concurrent findings of facts and

in absence of any perversity, no case is made out warranting

admission of Criminal Revision.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

12. Bahadur Singh (PW-1) is the complainant. He is working as a

Gateman in Railway. On 17/12/2015 he was posted at Gate No.405.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.2874/2021 Saurabh Vs. State of M.P.

The incident took place at 14:23. The applicant came there on his

tractor and started pressurizing the complainant to open the gate.

Accordingly, the complainant after seeking permission from the

senior officer, opened the gate. The applicant crossed the railway gate

alongwith his tractor. Thereafter, the applicant came back and

challenged the complainant that he is Saurabh Jat and is a known

criminal of the locality and also insisted that whenever he comes,

then he should be permitted to cross the railway gate without any

difficulty. The complainant replied that the gate can be opened only

in accordance with law and whenever the applicant would come, the

gate would be opened only in accordance with law. On that issue, the

applicant started abusing the complainant and when it was objected

by him, then the applicant assaulted by means of a knife causing

injury on his thumb and also gave a teeth bite on his ear. Thereafter,

the applicant ran away. The matter was immediately informed to the

senior officers. Thereafter, his senior officer Sanjay, JE came on the

spot. Information was given to RPF who took the complainant to the

police station Antri, where FIR was lodged, which is Ex.P/1. The spot

map, Ex.P/2, was prepared, complainant was sent for medical

examination and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. This

witness was cross-examined in detail.

13. Bhan Singh (PW-2) has stated that he received a telephonic

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.2874/2021 Saurabh Vs. State of M.P.

call from his senior officer Gupta and instructed that he should go to

gate No.405 where some quarrel is going on. When this witness

reached on the spot, he found that the complainant had an injury on

his ear and blood was oozing out. Since the witness had not disclosed

about the remaining facts, therefore, he was declared hostile and in

cross-examination by the prosecution, he admitted that the

complainant had informed that he was beaten and abused by the

applicant. However, in cross-examination he fairly conceded that the

incident did not take place in his presence and admitted that he is

stating in accordance with the information given by the complainant.

14. Ramnaresh Bhadoriya (PW-3) has investigated the matter and

had prepared the spot map, Ex.P/2. He had recorded the statements of

the witnesses. The applicant Saurabh Jat was arrested vide arrest

memo, Ex.P/3 and the charge-sheet was filed.

15. Sanjay (PW-4) has stated that he was posted on the post of

Junior Engineer. On 17/12/2015 he received a telephonic call from

the complainant that some outsider is quarreling with him and he has

got injured and accordingly, this witness instructed the complainant

to stay back at gate No.405. Within 10 minutes of the telephonic call,

this witness reached on the spot and found that there was a bleeding

from the ear and palm of the complainant. He immediately informed

the RPF Sub Inspector Devi Singh. After sometime, Bahadur Singh

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.2874/2021 Saurabh Vs. State of M.P.

Meena was taken to Police Station Antri and he was also given first

aid. The complainant lodged the report at Police Station Antri. The

duty certificate of the complainant was given by this witness, which

is Ex.P/5. Since in the examination-in-chief this witness has stated

that he was informed by the complainant that some outsider had

caused injury, therefore, this witness was declared hostile and in

cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor he admitted that he was

informed by the complainant that the applicant was going on his

tractor to Keeratpur and he also admitted that the complainant had

informed that the applicant has threatened him and has also abused

him as well as also caused injury by means of a knife.

16. Indravikram Singh Chauhan (PW-5) has also stated that he was

posted on the post of Senior Section Officer and he was informed by

the complainant that he has been assaulted by Saurabh Jat and

accordingly, he instructed his Assistant Sanjay to go to the gate and

handle the situation. Accordingly, an information to the RPF was also

given. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the FIR in Police Station

Antri. Since the entire allegations were not narrated in the

examination-in-chief, therefore, this witness was declared hostile and

in cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he admitted that the

complainant had also informed that the applicant had used abusive

language and has also extended threat to his life.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.2874/2021 Saurabh Vs. State of M.P.

17. T.N. Soni (PW-6) had medically examined the complainant and

found a cut mark on the thumb of the right hand admeasuring 1.5 cm.

X 0.5 cm. which was caused by a sharp object and the duration of the

injury was within 24 hours and it was simple in nature. An abrasion

was also found on the left ear of the complainant admeasuring 1.5

cm. X 0.5 cm. which was caused by hard and blunt object. The nature

of injury was also simple and was caused within 24 hours. The MLC

of the complainant is Ex.P/6. In cross-examination, he admitted that

the injury no.2 can be caused by nail also.

18. The important aspect of the matter is that the applicant himself

has examined Somveer Singh Rana (DW-1) in his defence. He stated

that on 17/12/2015 at about 2:30 the incident took place at Kalyani

Railway Crossing. A hot talk was going on between the applicant and

Gateman Bahadur Singh-complainant. This witness also claims that

he was standing there in order to cross the gate. The applicant was

insisting that the complainant should open the railway gate, whereas

the complainant was demanding money from the applicant and

alleged that he would open the gate only if the money is paid.

Thereafter, this witness left by convincing both the persons and the

applicant and this witness went towards their village. It was further

claimed that the complainant is in the habit of fighting and he never

opens the gate. He further admitted that only hot talk had taken place

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.2874/2021 Saurabh Vs. State of M.P.

and the complainant was never beaten. In cross-examination, this

witness has stated that at the time of the incident the Railway

Crossing Gate was closed. However, he claims that it was not the

time for passing of train. He claimed that the complainant is in the

habit of keeping the gate closed, however, could not explain the date

and time on which the gates were kept closed. However, he claimed

that whenever he had seen, he found that the gate was closed. He

further admitted that he had never complained to the senior officers

regarding unnecessary closure of the gate of the railway crossing.

The applicant was going from village Makoda to village Keeratpura

and claimed that thereafter, he returned back and after the hot talk, he

persuaded the applicant to return back to his village and accordingly,

both of them came back to village Keeratpur. He further claimed that

on the date of incident he met with the applicant at railway crossing.

He again admitted that on the date of incident a hot talk had taken

place between the applicant and the complainant on the question of

opening of gate. He further admitted that the incident took place at

2:23.

19. Thus, it is clear that even according to the applicant, the

applicant was insisting that the complainant should open the gate of

railway crossing. Whenever a train is about to pass, the railway gates

are closed in order to protect the life of the by-passers. It is the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.2874/2021 Saurabh Vs. State of M.P.

official duty of the Gateman. In case if the gate is not closed at the

time of passing of railway, then it would result in accident thereby

putting the life of several persons in danger. When the gate of railway

crossing was closed, then under what authority or circumstances, the

applicant can insist that the gate should be opened, has not been

clarified.

20. Be that whatever it may.

21. The applicant himself has admitted half of the incident. It is

clear from the evidence of the witnesses that immediately when they

reached on the spot, they found the complainant in an injured

condition. Dr. T.N. Soni has also found injuries on the body of the

complainant. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the Courts below did not commit any mistake

in convicting the applicant for offence under Sections 332 and 353 of

IPC. Furthermore, this Court while exercising revisional powers

cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of facts until and unless

they are contrary to record and perverse. By way of abandon caution,

this Court has considered the evidence led by the prosecution as well

as the defence and has found that no perversity has been committed

by any of the Courts below in recording the findings of guilt.

22. Further, the applicant could not clarify as to how the Trial

Court had no jurisdiction to try the case.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.2874/2021 Saurabh Vs. State of M.P.

23. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant under Sections

332, 353 of IPC is hereby affirmed.

24. So far as the question of sentence under Section 332 of IPC is

concerned, the Courts below have already adopted a very lenient

view and, therefore, it does not require any interference.

25. Ex. consequenti, the judgment and sentence dated 29/10/2021

passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior

in Criminal Appeal No.47/2017 and the judgment and sentence dated

8/3/2017 passed by JMFC, Dabra, District Gwalior in Criminal Case

No.1542/2015 are hereby affirmed.

26. The applicant is in jail. He shall undergo the remaining jail

sentence.

27. Let a copy of this judgment be provided to the applicant free of

costs.

28. With aforesaid, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2021.11.25 19:02:21 +05'30'