Nand Lal vs Pushpa Devi
2022 Latest Caselaw 16403 MP

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 905/2009                                                            1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                   AT GWALIOR
                                     BEFORE
                        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
                        JUDGEMENT DATED 12th DECEMBER, 2022

                            CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 905/2009

     Between:-
      1. NAND LAL S/O SHRI MOHAN SINGH , AGED ABOUT 50
      YEARS,   OCCUPATION:    AGRICULTURIST,   R/O   VILL.
      BHAISARVAS    (PIPARIYA)     P.S. ASHOK      NAGAR,
      DIST.ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
      2. HERENDRA SINGH, S/O SHRI NANDLAL SINGH KUSHWAH,
      AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O. LAHROLI, P.S. UMARI, DIST.
      BIHND (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                        .....PETITIONERS
     (BY MR. INDAR SINGH ASTHANA - ADVOCATE )

     AND

      1.PUSHPA DEVI WD/O BRIJVEER SINGH KUSHWAH , AGED
      ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O VILL. LEHAROLI, P.S.UMARI, DISTT.
      BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
      2. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. UMARI, DISTT. BHIND
      (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                     ..... RESPONDENTS
      ( BY MR. RAMADHAR CHOWBEY - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)



             This revision coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
 following:-

                                           ORDER

This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioners under section 397

r/w section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment dated

11/11/2009 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhind in Cr. A. No.

67/2009 affirming the judgment dated 23/06/2009 passed in Criminal Case No. ALOK KUMAR 2022.12.15 13:28:00 +05'30' 11.0.23

3345/2006 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Bhind, whereby, the learned

trial Court convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 506

Part-II of IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Six

Months with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with default stipulation.

2. As per prosecution story, short facts of the case leading to filing of this

criminal revision are that the accused persons were having old enmity with the

complainant due to the fact that the husband of the complainant was murdered and

she was not let to go to depose her evidence and the accused persons managed to get

the Judgment in their favour. The complainant is a poor widow and illiterate rural

woman, therefore, she did not get the information. The judgment was challenged

before this Court bearing No. 456/2003 and the notices were issued to the accused

persons. On receipt of notice, the accused Nand Lal and his son Harendra came to the

house of the complainant armed with gun and on showing the gun intimidated her to

take the case back. They also threatened the complainant that they would not let her

to live in the village and would kill her as they had killed her husband. At the spot of

incident, son of the complainant and Anil Tiwari, who came to give tuition to the son

of the complainant, were present. Thereafter, the complainant went to the police

station concerned and also gave application to the Superintendent of Police, but in

vain. Thereafter, on account of lethargic attitude of the police authorities, the

complainant has filed a private complaint before the court below for registration of

the offence punishable under sections 294, 504, 506 Part - II of IPC against the

accused persons, which was entertained by the court below. ALOK KUMAR 2022.12.15 13:28:15 +05'30' 11.0.23

3. The learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioners, which were

denied by them. The defence of accused is of false implication and the same defence

has been put forth by them in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

4. The learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and

after appreciating the evidence available on record vide judgment dated 23/06/2009

passed in Criminal Case No. 3345/2006 convicted the petitioners for the offence

punishable under Section 506 Part-II of IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for Six Months with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with default

stipulation. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal bearing Cr. A. No.

67/2009 before the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhind. The learned

lower appellate Court after hearing learned counsel for the rival parties vide

impugned judgment dated 11/11/2009 affirmed the judgment dated 23/06/2009

passed by the trial Court, against which, the present revision is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioners argued that the petitioners have

falsely been implicated in the case. It is further argued that there are omissions and

contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted

that prosecution has not examined any independent witness, but only interested

witness, therefore, it is prayed that the revision filed by the petitioners deserves to be

allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for respondent/State submits that after due appreciation of

evidence, learned Courts below have found the offence proved against the petitioners,

ALOK KUMAR 2022.12.15 13:28:26 +05'30' 11.0.23

which requires no interference. It is submitted that the revision filed by the

petitioners be dismissed.

7. Heard the parties and perused the record.

8. In this case the cognizance was taken on the basis of private complaint. The

complainant has examined herself as PW/1 and Anil Kumar Tiwari as PW/2 to prove

her case.

9. PW/1 complainant Smt. Pushpa has stated in her court-statement that

petitioners/accused persons are her old enemies. Her son Ramveer is living with her.

The accused persons got acquitted by the trial Court against which a revision petition

is pending before the High Court. In that case, she received a notice from the High

Court. Thereafter, accused persons came and threatened her for taking the case back.

Accused Nandlal singh was having a gun. Anil Tiwari (PW/2) was present there who

tried to settle the matter. She had made a complaint to Police of police Station city

Kotwali, however, the Police refused to lodge her report. Thereafter, she sent a

written complaint to S.P .Bhind, however, no action was taken by the Police.

10. PW/2 Anil Kumar Tiwari has deposed that on 05/11/2003, he was in the house

of complainant Pushpa Devi for teaching her son Ramveer. At about 9:00 pm,

Nandlal and Harendra came and asked Pushpa Devi to take back the revision petition

pending in the High Court. Nandlal was having a gun. He tried to console the accused

persons, thereafter, they calmed down.

11. The perusal of record reveals that complainant Pushpa Devi has not filed any

document to show that the accused persons were acquitted in any criminal case ALOK KUMAR 2022.12.15 13:28:37 +05'30' 11.0.23

lodged by her. She has also not filed the document to prove that any revision petition

against the order of acquittal was pending at the time of incident. The complainant

has also not filed any document to show that she has sent any complaint to S.P.

Bhind. Therefore, her statement is found to be doubtful that because of the judgment

of acquittal in any criminal case or pendency of any revision petition, accused

persons threatened her.

12. PW/2 Anil Kumar Tiwari, in his cross-examination, at para 3 said that he is

only class 10th pass and is not a teacher in any school. He gives tuition to students

from class 5th to class 8th and at the time of incident he was teaching 11 students,

however, he failed to tell the name of his students. In his cross-examination at para 7,

he has also stated that only an altercation happened at the time of incident and,

therefore, they did not raise alarm to help them. He has also admitted that even after

the sound of altercation, neighbours did not come. In view of the above, the

statements of PW/2 Anil Kumar Tiwari is not found to be reliable.

13. As per PW/2 Anil Kumar Tiwari, he was giving tuition to Ramveer, son of

Pushpa Devi and at the time of incident he was teaching him. Therefore, Ramveer is

an important witness, however the complainant has not examined Ramveer as a

witness. This makes the case suspicious.

14. In the present case, in the statements of PW/1 complainant Smt. Pushpa and

PW/2 Anil Kumar Tiwari not a single word has been uttered that they got intimidated

or fear-stricken because of the alleged threat of the accused persons. The gist of the

offence under Section 503 IPC is the effect which the threat is intended to have upon ALOK KUMAR 2022.12.15 13:28:52 +05'30' 11.0.23

the mind of the person threatened. The threat must be one that can be put into

execution by the person threatening. A mere vague allegation by the accused that he

will kill if case is not taken back does not amount to criminal intimidation.

15. Consequently, the ingredients of Section 506 part II Of the I.P.C. are not found

to be duly proved by the prosecution.

16. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that

this is a fit case to interfere in the judgment of learned Courts below while exercising

revisional power because the findings of the learned trial Court as well as the First

Appellate Court are contrary to the evidence available on record as well as against

the law.

17. Accordingly, present criminal revision is allowed, the impugned judgments

passed by the Courts below are hereby quashed and the petitioners are acquitted of

the charge levelled against them under Section 506 Part-II of IPC. Their bail-bonds

stand discharged.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE Durgekar*/AKS

ALOK KUMAR 2022.12.15 13:29:06 +05'30' 11.0.23