Anil Kori vs Ramsajeewan Kori
2022 Latest Caselaw 5979 MP

                                     1
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           AT JABALPUR
                                 BEFORE
               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
                            ON THE 23rd OF APRIL, 2022

                    CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1756 of 2022

         Between:-
         ANIL KORI S/O GIRDHARI KORI , AGED ABOUT 18
         YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURER R/O KAMTANA
         P.S. AMANGANJ DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA
         PRADESH)

                                                                    .....APPELLANT
         (BY SHRI ANKUR KASHYAP- ADVOCATE)

         AND

1.       RAMSAJEEWAN KORI S/O HANUMAT KORI , AGED
         ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL R/O VILLAGE
         KAMTANA P.S. AMANGANJ DISTT. PANNA (M.P.)
         (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.       RAMSWAROOP KORI S/O HANUMAT KORI , AGED
         ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NILL R/O
         VILLAGE KAMTANA P.S. AMANGANJ DISTT.
         PANNA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
         (BY SHRI PURUSHOTTAM SONI-PANEL LAWYER)

      This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court delivered the

following:
                                   JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the acquittal order dated 29.01.2022 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Panna (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.19/2020 (Anil Kori vs. Ramsajeewan and another), appellant/complainant Anil Kori has filed this appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 03.09.2016 complainant Anil Kori filed a complaint before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panna and alleged that on 26.08.2016 at around 6:00-7:00 a.m. he had gone to answer the call of nature towards Korihar talaiya. After that, when he was returning towards his home, respondents/accused came from the behind, pushed him and abused and said why he prevent them from playing in front his house. When he asked them not to abuse, accused persons beat him by means of lathis causing injuries on his right hand, rib

of left back, left thigh and finger of left hand. When he raised alarm, Buchra Dheemar and Laxman Kori reached there and pacified the matter. Respondents/accused threatened him to kill. After coming over to home, he narrated the entire incident to his father, who made a call on 100 number. After

sometime police reached at his home and saw the injuries on his person. After sometime, he went to Amanganj police station and narrated the entire incident to police constable. He was medically examined, but when police did not take any action, he filed complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panna. Cognizance was taken against respondents/accused by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panna for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 294 and 506-II of IPC and committed the case to the Court of Session, holding it to be cross case of Special Case No.292/2016 under the POCSO Act pending against complainant and committed to the Court of Session.

3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the respondents/accused for commission of offence under Sections 341, 294, 323 and 506-II of IPC. Respondents/accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried.

4 . I n order to prove its case, prosecution examined Anil Kori (PW-1), Buchra Dheemar (PW-2), Girdhari (PW-3) and Laxman Kori (PW-4).

5. After meticulously examining the evidence produced by the prosecution, learned trial Court by the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 29.01.2022, acquitted the respondents/accused persons for commission of offence under Sections 341, 294, 323 and 506-II of IPC. Hence, the present appeal before this Court has been filed by appellant/victim Anil Kori.

6. Mr. Ankur Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant/ victim has raised following contentions before this Court:

(i) Learned trial Court has erred in ignoring the clear cut testimony of Anil Kori (PW-1), Buchra Dheemar (PW-2), Girdhari (PW-3) and Laxman Kori (PW-

4). Buchra Dheemar (PW-2) and Girdhari (PW-3) are the eyewitnesses of the incident. They have corroborated the evidence of Anil Kori (PW-1). Anil Kori (PW-1) has described the incident in a very detailed manner in his testimony. Therefore, his testimony and testimony of both witnesses should not have been

ignored by the trial Court.

(ii) Learned trial Court has misread and missappreciated the testimony of aforesaid witnesses.

(iii) Mere absence of medical evidence, learned trial Court was not justified in disbelieving the evidence of Anil (PW-1) and eyewitnesses and acquitting the respondents/accused.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and examined the trial Court record.

8. Anil Kori (PW-1) is the star witness. He has deposed that on 26.08.2016 at around 6:00-7:00 a.m. after answering the call of nature, when he was coming back to his home, respondents/accused Ramsajeewan Kori and Ramswaroop Kori came from the behind pushed and abused him. When he asked them not to abuse him they beat him by means of lathis causing injuries over his right hand, in the rib of back, left thigh and finger of left hand. When he raised alarm, Buchra Dheemar and Laxman Kori came and pacified the matter. He further deposed that his father had made a call to police on 100 number. Police had come to his home and had seen the injuries on his person. Thereafter he along with his father had gone to police station and had lodged FIR against the accused persons. He was examined by doctor but later police in collusion with accused persons gave him the NCR and had asked to approach the Court. In evidence he has produced NCR (Ex. P/1) and complaint (Ex. P/2) sent to Superintendent of Police through postal AD (Ex.P/3). The evidence of Anil Kori (PW-1) that hurt was caused to him by the accused persons finds corroboration from the evidence of Buchra Dheemar (PW-

2) and Girdhari (PW-3).

9. As far as reliability and truthfulness of the evidence of Girdhari (PW-3), father of Anil Kori (PW-1) is concerned, he is a hearsay witness. Hence, learned trial Court has not committed any error in disbelieving his hearsay evidence. In so far as reliability and truthfulness of Laxman Kori (PW-4) is concerned, he is the cousin of Anil (PW-1). Therefore, the learned trial Court has also not committed any error in disbelieving his evidence as suspicious because he is an interested witness.

10. As far as the reliability and truthfulness of the evidence of Anil Kori (PW-1) and Buchra Dheemar (PW-2) is concerned, their evidence is not supported by any medical evidence and so called FIR alleged to have been lodged by Anil in police station same day. On a perusal of NCR (Ex. P/1), it is revealed that it was lodged on 28.08.2016 after two days of alleged incident. In Ex. P-1, reasons for delay in lodging the same has been stated the fear. In his evidence, Anil Kori (PW-

1) has deposed that he was examined by the doctor but no MLC report had been produced by him before the trial Court. In cross-examination, Anil Kori (PW-1) has explicitly admitted that he is facing a case before the POCSO Court on the basis of a report lodged by Parwati, the minor sister of the respondents/accused. This fact has also been admitted by Burcha Dheemar (PW-2), Girdhari (PW-3) and Laxman Kori (PW-4) in their evidence.

11. On the basis of admissions made by aforesaid witnesses, it is apparent that appellant/victim Anil faced a criminal case about outraging the modesty of minor sister of respondents/accused. In such circumstances, the possibility of false implication of respondents/accused by filing a criminal complaint with view to pressurize them for compromise or to settle score cannot be ruled out. It is also pertinent to note that NCR Ex.P/1 had been lodged after two days of so called incident and no plausible explanation has been offered by the appellant/victim about the delay caused in lodging the NCR which makes his evidence shaky and doubtful.

12. The prosecution has not led any medical evidence to prove that Anil had any injury over his person on the day of incident or on the day when non- cognizable report was drawn. Therefore, in absence of any medical evidence, only on the basis of oral evidence of Anil Kori (PW-1), who was facing criminal case, learned trial Court was fully justified in not believing his evidence. The evidence of Anil Kori (PW-1), Girdhari (PW-3), Buchra Dheemar (PW-2) and Laxman Kori (PW-4) appears self contradictory. They are all interested witnesses. Therefore, I am of the view that learned trial Court has not committed any error in disbelieving their unfounded evidence.

13. This Court has examined the evidence of witnesses recorded by the

learned trial Court. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses in proper perspective has rightly come to the conclusion that evidence of complainant Anil Kori (PW-1), Buchra Deemar (PW-2) and Laxman Kori (PW-4) is not worth reliance as they are interested witnesses whereas Girdhari (PW-3) is hearsay witness.

14. Learned trial Court has noticed the material contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of Anil Kori (PW-1), Buchra Dheemar (PW-3) and Laxman Kori (PW-4). Learned trial Court was fully justified in doubting the veracity of the evidence of aforesaid witnesses as it does not transpire confidence. On examination of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, there is nothing on record on the basis of which it may be inferred that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are in any way perverse or against material available on record. Therefore, after considering all the material on record, learned trial Court has rightly concluded that possibility of false implication of respondents/accused with a view to pressurize them cannot be ruled out as complainant is facing trial in a POCSO case, on the basis of report lodged by minor sister of respondents/accused. The evidence of Anil Kori (PW-1), Buchra Dheemar (PW-2)

and Laxman Kori (PW-4), in such fact scenario being suspicious, loses its significance.

15. It is, indeed, trite to state that in case of direct evidence, the prosecution must prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt. However, the present case is full of doubts. The prosecution has failed to discharge the burden of proof imposed upon it. Since the trial Court has taken a reasonable view after critically analyzing the evidence, this Court of the view that the impugned acquittal order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal preferred by appellant/victim.

16. Hence, the appeal preferred by appellant/victim is hereby dismissed. Trial Court record along with a copy of appeal judgment be sent down immediately to the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Panna (M.P.)

Digitally signed by BIJU BABY Date: 2022.04.28 10:46:20 +05'30' (DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)

JUDGE b