Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh vs State Of Mp on 26 April, 2022
Author: Rajendra Kumar (Verma)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
ON THE 26th OF APRIL, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 148 of 2022
Between:-
SANTOSH S/O HEMRAJ KEWAT , AGED ABOUT 45
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: MAJDUR
RAYKANPUR,SHUJALPUR CITY, (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI A.K. SAXENA, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF MP STATION OFFICER THROUGH P.S.
SHUJALPUR CITY (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI G.S. CHOUHAN, DY. GA FOR THE STATE )
This appeal coming on admission, but with the consent of parties, heard
finally and the court passed the following:
ORDER
The present criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under
Section 374 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.12.2021 passed
in Crime No.43/2021 in ST No.30/2021 whereby the learned 4th ASJ, Shujalpur
District Shajapur has convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 326 of
IPC for the period already undergone till the date of decision i.e. for six months
and five days with fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation.
As per the prosecution story, on the date of incident on 20.02.2021 at about
4.30 PM, the complainant went with one Nandkishore on the shop of appellant for
purchasing fish. Nandkishore tried for some bargaining in the prices of the fish, but
the appellant abused him and instantly gave a blow of Bakka (arm used for fish
cutting) on the head of Nandkishore. The complainant taken to him to the hospital
and thereafter on his compliant, the police has filed the FIR against the appellant
under Sections 307, 294 of IPC and u/s 25(1-B)(B) and 27 of the Arms Act. After
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.04.27
17:56:51 IST
investigation, the police has filed the charge-sheet against the appellant.
The appellant was charged under Sections 307, 294 of IPC and u/s 25(1-B)
(B) and 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant has abjured his guilt and he took a plea
that he is innocent and has implicated falsely in the present case.
The prosecution has examined total 10 witnesses i.e. Radheshyam (PW-1),
Nandkishore (PW-2), Santosh S/o Badrilal (PW-3), Shahrukh (PW-4), Badrilal
(PW-5), Raju Yadav (PW-6), Dr. Sharda Ramsariya (PW-7), Rajesh (PW-8), Dr.
Apurva Sharma (PW-9) and Ghanshyam Bearagi (PW-10).
No witness in his defence was examined. Thereafter, the learned Court
below after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, has acquitted the
appellant from the charges as framed above, but convicted the appellant only under
Section 326 of IPC only.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the injured PW-1
Nandkishore as well as witness injured PW-2 Radheshyam have turned hostile
before the trial Court and have not supported the case of the prosecution. As per
the statements of witness PW-2, the injured sustained injury due to an accident
with the iron sheet (Chadar) and nobody has caused injury to him. PW-1, injured
Nandkishore has also stated the same story. It is further submitted that the learned
trial Court has convicted the appellant only on the basis of report of Medical
Officer PW-7 Dr. Sharda Ramsariya and found that Radheshyam (PW-1),
Nandkishore (PW-2), Santosh S/o Badrilal (PW-3) are telling lie. The learned trial
Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record in its right perspective,
there is no direct or indirect evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. The
learned trial Court has not considered the fact that the eye-witness of the case as
well as injured have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution
and has wrongly convicted the appellant. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed
and the appellant is liable to be acquitted.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and supported the
order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that
the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant rightly in view of the injury
caused to the injured.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.04.27
17:56:51 IST
record.
From the face of record itself, it reveals that PW-7 Dr. Sharda Ramsariya
has stated that she has examined the injured Nandkishore on 20.02.2021 at Civil
Hospital, Sujalpur and found a incised wound on his head which was grievous in
nature and dangerous to life. PW-2 Nandkishore himself has stated before the trial
Court that this injury is caused due to chaos he met with the iron sheet (Chadar)
and received the injury on his head. In the cross-examination, he has specifically
stated that nobody has caused injury to him and the accused/appellant has not
assaulted on him.
PW-1 Radheshyam has also turned hostile and have not supported the case
of the prosecution. PW-3 Santosh has also turned hostile and not supported the
prosecution story. The present case is of no evidence. From the statements of
these witnesses, it is clear that the injured has received the injury on his head due to
met with an accident with the iron sheet, so it is clear that only on the basis of
medical report and presumption that the witnesses are telling lie, the learned trial
Court has convicted the appellant and committed grave error of law. The learned
trial Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record in its right
perspective and convicted the appellant wrongly. Hence, the appeal is liable to and
is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 10.12.2021 is hereby set aside.
The appellant is acquitted from the charges under Section 326 of IPC. He be
at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case in jail.
The fine amount so deposited shall be returned to him.
The bail band shall stand discharged.
The order of the learned trial Court regarding seized property stands
confirmed.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.04.27
17:56:51 IST
