Madhya Pradesh High Court

Arvind Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 2022

Author: Anjuli Palo

                                    1
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                   BEFORE
                       HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO
                          ON THE 4th OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2029 of 2021

           Between:-
           ARVIND JATAV S/O GAJRAJ @ GAJJU JATAV ,
           AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O PATHARIYA
           PHATAK P/S PATHARIYA PATHAK, DISTT.
           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                               .....PETITIONER
           (BY SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR MISHRA, ADVOCATE )

           AND

           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR P.S.
           PATHRIYA DISTT. DAMOH M.P (MADHYA
           PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
           (BY MS.RANJANA AGNIHOTRI, GOVT. ADVOCATE )
                        (Heard through Video Conferencing)
      This revision coming on for final hearing at motion stage this day,
the court passed the following:
                                     ORDER

This criminal revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure has been filed by the applicant against order dated 29.7.2021 passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Criminal Appeal No.98/2019 whereby the judgment dated 30.11.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Damoh in Criminal Case No.2401323/2014 convicting the applicant under section 14 of the Madhya Pradesh State Security Act and sentencing him with R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.1000/- has been affirmed.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in Case No.1286/Pra.Va.Ji.Magi.2013 an order of externment was passed on 30.10.2013 against the applicant under section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh State Security Act externing him from district Damoh and adjoining districts. After passing of aforesaid order of externment dated 30.10.2013, the applicant was found in the district of Damoh near Pathariya Railway Crossing on 26.5.2014.

On information by an informer the Police arrested the applicant for violation of order of externment dated 30.10.2013 and registered offences under section 188 of IPC and section 14 of the M.P. State Security Act for violating section 3 thereof.

3. The learned trial Court on the basis of testimony of S.R.Richhariya (PW.3), Golu Jatav (PW.2), Reader of Collector, namely,

Abdul Ghani (PW.4), Head Constable Rajendra Mishra (PW.5) and appreciating as also corroborating the same, convicted the applicant as aforementioned vide judgment dated 30.11.2019. It also held that it has been proved that the order of District Magistrate was effected on 30.10.2013, but the applicant disobeyed the same and he was found within the limits of District Damoh and accordingly, sentenced the applicant as stated hereinabove.

4. Being aggrieved with judgment of trial Court the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No.98/2019 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh. The lower appellate Court vide its judgment dated 29.7.2021 affirmed the judgment and sentence passed by the trial Court.

5. The applicant in instant revision challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the grounds that the findings arrived at by the courts below are not supported by the prosecution evidence. The courts below ought to have appreciated that entire prosecution story has been prepared by the Police and the applicant ought to have been given the benefit of doubt. The Courts below have not properly appreciated the defence version. There are omissions and contradictions in the statements and therefore, the applicant ought not to have been convicted.

6. In this case, S.R.Richhariya (PW.3) is an important witness, who received secret information about the presence of the applicant near Pathariya gate, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of District Damoh. The document 'Rochnamcha Sanha' (Ex.P/3) was recorded at about 8:15 am. Then, this witness had proceeded with other witnesses to the spot, where the

applicant was found. Then, he was arrested as per arrest memo (Ex.P/2). All these proceedings were also recorded in 'Vapsi Rojnamcha' (Ex.P/4). Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that the applicant was arrested within the territorial jurisdiction of District Damoh.

7. It was admitted that there was an order of District Magistrate (Ex.P/9). This order was duly served on the applicant, as established in 'Rojnamcha' (Ex.P/11). The onus is on the prosecution to prove the violation of order of externment of district. For the discharge of this, the prosecution has presented the truthful representative of the then District Magistrate, Abdul Ghani (PW.4). The said order of externment from district was duly served on the accused, where there is note of service and signature of the accused on

the order (Ex.P/12) and in this regard, 'Sanha' No.2630/ 31.10.2013 (Ex.P/11C) has been filed wherefrom it is clear that the order of externment from district was duly served on the accused. It is clear from the perusal of order of District Magistrate dated 30/10/2013 (Ex.P/9) that the accused (Arvind) was expelled for a period of one year from the adjoining districts, viz. Sagar, Narsinghpur, Jabalpur, Katni, Panna and Chhatarpur having connecting borders with the district Damoh and he was arrested within a year in the district of Damoh.

8. Although 'Panch' witnesses, namely, Amit Jatav (PW/1) and Golu Jatav (PW/2) have turned hostile, but they had admitted their signatures on the arrest memo (Ex.P/2). Further, S.R.Richhariya (PW.3) acted impartially without any prejudice against the applicant. He was performing his official duty. He had no animosity with the applicant, nor the applicant suggested any reason to him to show that his testimony was neither trustworthy nor reliable.

9. It is a settled law that no number of witnesses is described under section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act to prove any fact. The testimony of single witness is sufficient to prove any fact. Further, there is a presumption that the Police officers also work with honesty while doing their official duties.

10. In this regard it is worth referring to the decision of Apex Court reported in Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), (2020) 10 SCC 120 wherein the relevant portion of paragraphs 11 & 12 read as under:-

"11.............. As held by this Court in a catena of decisions, testimony of police personnel will be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses his testimony cannot be relied upon. [See Karamjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 5 SCC 291. As observed and held by this Court in Devender Pal Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2002) 5 SCC 234, the presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as of other persons, and it is not judicial approach to distrust and suspect him without good grounds therefor.

11 . 1 . At this stage, reference may be made to Illustration (e) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act. As per the said provision, in law if an official act has been proved to have been done, it shall be presumed to be regularly done. Credit has to be given to public officers in the absence of any proof to the contrary of their not acting with honesty or within limits of their authority. Therefore, merely because the complainant conducted the investigation that would not be sufficient to cast doubt on the entire prosecution version and to hold that the same makes the prosecution version vulnerable. The matter has to be left to be decided on a case-to-case basis without any universal generalisation.

11.2.. xxxx 11.3. xxxx

12. Therefore, as such, there is no reason to doubt the credibility of t he informant and doubt the entire case of the prosecution solely on the ground that the informant has investigated the case. Solely on the basis of some apprehension or the doubts, the entire prosecution version cannot be discarded and the accused is not to be straightaway acquitted unless and until the accused is able to establish and prove the bias and the prejudice."

11. Similarly, High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Chandrashekhar Bhardwaj and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2021 SCC Online Chh 1815 has held thus:-

" 12. It cannot be stated as a rule of law that a police officer can or cannot be a

reliable in a criminal case which will always depend upon facts of a given case. If testimony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidence, then statement of such witness cannot be discarded only on ground that he is police officer and may have some interest in success of the case. Only when his interest in success of case is motivated by overzealousness to a extent of his involving innocent people, then, no credibility can be attached to his statement. Presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as in respect of other persons and it is not proper to distrust and suspect him without there being good grounds therefor

12. The prosecution has duly proved the charge against the applicant. Applicant has criminal history also, as per Exhibits-P/7 & P/8.

13. It was also proved that order (Exhibit-P/9) was passed on 30.10.2013 and within a year the applicant was found to have disobeyed or not complied with the direction of the SDM. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly convicted him under section 14 of Madhya Pradesh State Security Act and hence, no interference is called by this Court.