Litaru vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6060 MP

                              1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      CRR-1317-2022
                   Litaru Vs. State of MP

Gwalior, Dated: 25.04.2022

      Shri A.S. Jadon, Counsel for the applicant.

      Shri A.K. Nirankari, Counsel for the State.

      This criminal revision under Section 397, 401 of CrPC has

been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated

15.03.2022

passed by the Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Appeal

No.115/2018 thereby affirming the judgment and sentence dated

12.04.2018 passed by JMFC, Guna in Criminal Case

No.3586/2015, by which the applicant has been convicted under

Section 325/34 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment of one year with a fine of Rs.700/-, in default to

suffer further one month's RI.

2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present revision, in

short, are that Gokul, who is son of the complainant Ramcharan

Dhakad, had gone near the culvert in order to relieve himself. At

that time, it is alleged that on account of old enmity, the applicant

and his wife as well as Pappu Sahariya came on the spot and

started abusing him filthily. When it was objected by him, then the

applicant gave a lathi blow on his forehead. It is alleged that when

Gokul tried to run away, then the co-accused Ramkali and Pappu

waylaid him and assaulted him by fists and blows. Blows on both

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-1317-2022 Litaru Vs. State of MP

the knees of the victim were also given. On hearing his screams,

witnesses Ramniwas, Girraj and Ramcharan reached on the spot. It

is alleged that while fleeing away, the applicant and his wife

Ramkali had also extended a threat. On the basis of the said report,

Crime No.211/2015 was registered for offence under Sections 323,

294, 341, 506 and 34 of IPC. The injured was got medically

examined. Spot map was prepared. Statements of the witnesses

were recorded as well as the accused persons were also arrested. X-

ray report of the victim Gokul was also obtained and, accordingly,

Section 325 of IPC was added and after completing the

investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.

3. The Trial Magistrate framed the charges under Sections 341,

294, 325/34 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC against the applicant and the

co-accused Ramkali as well as Pappu.

4. The applicant and the co-accused abjured their guilt and

pleaded not guilty. The Trial Magistrate after recording the

evidence of the witnesses convicted the applicant as well as

Ramkali and Pappu for offence under Section 325/34 of IPC,

whereas they were acquitted for offence under Sections 294, 341,

506 (Part-II) of IPC.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-1317-2022 Litaru Vs. State of MP

passed by the Court below, the applicant as well as co-accused

Ramkali and Pappu preferred a criminal appeal. The Appellate

Court by the impugned judgment dated 15.03.2022 acquitted the

co-accused Pappu and Ramkali, whereas dismissed the appeal filed

by the appellant and maintained the sentence awarded by the Trial

Court.

6. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, it is

submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the Courts below

have erroneously relied upon the evidence of the victim Gokul

(PW-1). In fact, the applicant has been falsely implicated. Although

the FIR was lodged by Ramcharan by claiming himself to be an

eyewitness, but in his evidence, he has admitted that he was not

present on the spot at the time of incident, but later on, he came to

know from the villager that the applicant had given a lathi blow to

the victim.

7. Per contra, the revision is vehemently opposed by the

counsel for the State. It is submitted that it is well established

principle of law that even if an erroneous concurrent finding of fact

has been recorded by the Courts below, then still this Court while

exercising its power under Sections 397, 401 of CrPC cannot

substitute its own findings. No perversity could be pointed out by

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-1317-2022 Litaru Vs. State of MP

the counsel for the applicant.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9. Gokul (PW-1) has specifically stated that the applicant had

given a lathi blow on his head. He further admitted that an enmity

is already going on, on property dispute. Although in examination-

in-chief he had stated that Pappu had also given a lathi blow on his

hands and legs, but fairly conceded that this fact was not

mentioned in his police statement Ex. D-1. Thus, it is clear that

there were material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of

Gokul (PW-1) with regard to the role played by the co-accused

Pappu and Ramkali. As per the MLC of the injured Gokul (PW-1)

Ex. P-6, he had sustained as many as six injuries including one

lacerated wound over left parietal part of skull, lacerated wound

over left forehead, abrasion over left leg below knee and

surrounding area, contusion with swelling over left forearm below

elbow as well as pain and swelling on right forearm and hand. As

per the x-ray report, fracture of upper region of ulna bone as well

as fracture of lower region of right ulna bone were found. Thus, it

is clear that the ocular evidence of Gokul (PW-1) finds

corroboration from the medical evidence.

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Bir Singh vs. Mukesh

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-1317-2022 Litaru Vs. State of MP

Kumar reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 has held that even if an

erroneous concurrent finding of fact has been recorded, still the

Revisional Court will not have any jurisdiction to substitute its

own finding. Unless and until perversity in the concurrent finding

of fact recorded by the Court below is pointed out by the counsel

for the applicant, it would not be possible for the Revisional Court

to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts by substituting its

own finding.

11. At this stage, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant

that since the Appellate Court has disbelieved the injured Gokul

(PW-1) in respect of Pappu and Ramkali, therefore, it is clear that

he is not a reliable witness.

12. Considered the submission made by the counsel for the

applicant.

13. It is well establish principle of law that latin maxim falsus in

uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India. Every attempt has

to be made by the Court to remove grain from the chaff. The

Appellate Court has already exercised its power after considering

the major omissions and contradictions in the evidence of Gokul

(PW-1). Merely because Gokul (PW-1) has been disbelieved in

respect of co-accused Ramkali and Pappu, it cannot be said that the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-1317-2022 Litaru Vs. State of MP

entire evidence of Gokul (PW-1) has to go, specifically when it

finds corroboration from the medical evidence also. Under these

circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case

is made out for interfering with impugned judgments of conviction

and sentence passed by the Courts below.

14. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated

15.03.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Appeal

No.115/2018 and the judgment and sentence dated 12.04.2018

passed by JMFC, Guna in Criminal Case No.3586/2015 are hereby

affirmed.

15. The revision fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge

Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2022.04.27 16:44:46 +05'30'