Madhya Pradesh High Court
Heera Lal vs The State Of M.P. on 21 August, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 21 st OF AUGUST, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2065 of 2003
BETWEEN:-
HEERA LAL, S/O SHANKAR GAWLI, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AMAGOHAN, P.S. SHAHPUR,
TEHSIL SHAHPUR, DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI PRANAY GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION
ARAKSHIT JATI JANJATI KALYAN, DISTRICT BETUL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI B.K. UPADHYAY - DY. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Reserved on : 07.08.2023.
Pronounced on : 21.08.2023.
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
In this criminal appeal, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed
on 20.11.2003 by Special Judge in Special Case No.83/2002, is under challenge,
whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence of Section 325 of IPC and is
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 01 year and fine of Rs.3000/-, with a default
clause that in case of non payment of fine, he is to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 3 months.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NITESH PANDEY
Signing time: 8/23/2023
11:17:06 AM
2. The facts of the prosecution case may be briefly summed up as that
on 14.07.2002 complainant Nandlal and his wife Mungo Bai were in their field,
at around 1:30 pm in the noon, 5-6 cattle of appellant were grazing in the field of
complainant to which, he objected, upon this, the appellant started abusing him
and caused him injuries with a stick. A report was lodged by Nandlal upon
which a crime was registered against the appellant and charge-sheet was filed.
He was charged with the offence of Sections 294 and 325 of IPC and Section
3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and after trial he was
convicted and sentenced only under Section 325 of IPC as aforesaid and was
acquitted under rest of the charges.
3 . The grounds raised in this appeal are that the learned Court erred in
holding the appellant guilty. It failed to appreciate the contradictions that had
occurred in the depositions of the witnesses. No injuries were found on the
hand or neck of the victim despite claims being made regarding them. The
injuries suffered by the victim could not have been caused by a stick as opined
by the expert in his query report. The finding of conviction is based solely on
conjectures and surmises. The injuries were caused on account of accidental
fall on hard surface and for wrong motives the complainant falsely implicated
the appellant. There was no seizure of stick from the possession of the
appellant and the story of prosecution was not corroborated by any
independent witness. It is, therefore, prayed that the conviction and sentence
be set-aside and, if necessary, the case should be considered for giving the
appellant, the benefit of probation.
4. The present appeal has been strongly opposed by the State claiming
that the judgment of the trial Court warrants no interference for being based on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NITESH PANDEY
Signing time: 8/23/2023
11:17:06 AM
reasons and analysis, hence, the appeal should be dismissed.
5. Both the parties have been heard, the record and the judgment of the
Court below is perused.
6 . The FIR reported in this matter is marked as Exhibit-P/2. It reveals
that the incident occurred when the cattle of appellant were grazing in the field
of complainant to which he objected and in retaliation, the appellant caused
injuries. Complainant Nandlal has been examined by the prosecution as PW-3.
In his Court testimony, he has assigned no reason why the incident occurred.
He merely says that he was with his wife in his field when suddenly appellant
came there and without stating a word he assaulted the complainant. These
statements are not in conformity with the facts disclosed in the FIR, as no case
of sudden assault is mentioned in the FIR. FIR claims that a dispute started
between the two parties when complainant found the cattle of appellant grazing
in his field. It is not explained by the complainant Nandlal why he chose to
conceal the reason of assault in his Court testimony.
7 . The alleged incident was witnessed by the wife of complainant
Mungo Bai (PW-4). She has deposed in her Court testimony that she and her
husband were driving the cattle away from their field when the appellant came to
their field and after questioning them why they were driving the cattle away, he
attacked the complainant with a stick and caused him injuries. It is claimed by
her in para 2 that these cattle had come inside their crop of Soyabean, hence,
they were driving the cattle away. Later in para 3 of her statements, she has
conceded to the fact that these cattle were not inside the field but they were on
the mudbound of their field. She has also admitted the fact that her brother-in-
law Mohanlal owns the adjoining field and this field was taken on contract by
the appellant. These facts disclose that the cattle of appellant were on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NITESH PANDEY
Signing time: 8/23/2023
11:17:06 AM
mudbound which was common boundary of the fields of the complainant and
the appellant.
8. It needs to be mentioned here that the facts admitted by Mungo Bai in
preceding para have been denied by complainant Nandlal (PW-3). According
to him, the appellant had not taken any field from his brother on contract. This
again shows that the complainant has purposefully concealed or denied the
facts which are otherwise manifest on record. It may also be mentioned here
that the spot map, Exhibit-P/5, prepared at the behest of complainant shows
mark "3" as the place where the cattle of appellant were grazing and this place is
shown well within the boundaries of the field of complainant. Similar are the
facts alleged in FIR wherein the complainant has asserted that the cattle of
appellant were inside the field of complainant. These facts undoubtedly lead to
the conclusion that at the time of reporting the matter and even during
investigation the complainant built up a story that appellant's cattle were grazing
inside his field but during Court testimony, he intentionally did not divulge any
fact on this point while his wife admitted that the cattle were not inside the field,
but on the boundaries which was common to the fields of both, appellant and
complainant. It is relevant to mention here the police statements given by the
complainant Nandlal and his wife Mungo Bai. In police statement Exhibit-D/1,
Nandlal has specifically stated that the 5-6 cattle of Heeralal (appellant) were
grazing near the boundary of Soyabean crop field of complainant. Similar are
the statements of Mungo Bai in Exhibit-D/2 wherein she has admitted that the
cattle of Heeralal were grazing near their field of Soyabean crop.
9 . The above discussion establishes the fact that the cattle of appellant
were not inside the field of complainant, still he had objected to against their
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NITESH PANDEY
Signing time: 8/23/2023
11:17:06 AM
grazing and was driving them away which resulted into a dispute between the
two and the appellant assaulted the complainant. It is admittedly proved that the
adjoining field was in the possession of appellant at the time when the case was
registered against him. Hence, there arises a possibility that by driving away the
cattle, grazing at boundary of appellant, the complainant was actually causing
damage to the crop. On the basis of this analysis, it can be convincingly
concluded that the complainant gave a false story of cattle grazing inside his
field at the time of lodging the FIR, he again gave a false narration at the time of
preparation of spot map and he purposefully expressed ignorance in his Court
testimony about the reason why the incident occurred. Further in the light of
other facts discussed above as well as on the basis of admissions made by
Mungo Bai (PW-4), the benefit of doubt needs to be given to the appellant who
wa s growing crop in the adjoining field and whose cattle grazing on the
boundary of the two fields were driven away by the complainant obviously
towards the side of field of appellant.
1 0 . In the circumstances that have surfaced on the basis of above
discussions and analysis, the appellant-Heeralal is acquitted of the charge of
Section 325 of IPC by giving him the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, his
conviction and sentence passed under the impugned judgment for the offences
of Section 325 of IPC are set-aside. The fine amount, if any deposited by the
appellant shall be refunded to him.
11. Appellant is already on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged.
12. Let the copy of this judgment be sent along with record to the trial
Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NITESH PANDEY
Signing time: 8/23/2023
11:17:06 AM
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Nitesh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NITESH PANDEY
Signing time: 8/23/2023
11:17:06 AM
