Madhya Pradesh High Court
Puneet @ Babu Thakurta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 6 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2251 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
PUNEET @ BABU THAKURTA S/O SATYAM THAKURTA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, KHAMARIYA GARHA THANA
KHAMARIYA SONPUR, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI PRAHLAD CHOUDHARY - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION KHAMARIYA, JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANOOP SONKAR - ADVOCATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is filed by the appellant Puneet @ Babu Thakurta S/o
Satyendra Thakurta being aggrieved of the judgment dated 01.10.2012 passed
by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act), Jabalpur
in Special Sessions case No.60/2012.
2. Shri Prahlad Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has been falsely implicated and convicted. There are several loopholes
in the prosecution story. Charges were framed against the appellant under
Sections 354, 294 of IPC and Section 3(1)(11) of the Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred
to as the ''SC/ST Act''). Appellant has been acquitted from the charges under
Section 294 of IPC and Section 3(1)(11) of the SC/ST Act. His conviction
under Section 354 of IPC is based on surmises and conjectures. It is submitted
t h a t incident admittedly took place on 24.05.2012. FIR was lodged on
27.05.2012. There are several omissions in the FIR. It is submitted that as per
the prosecution story, accused persons Pawan Rajput and Puneet had visited
the house of the prosecutrix. They called her husband Vinod. When prosecutrix
informed that Vinod is not present, they asked for a match box. When she kept
match box on the boundary then, Puneet had pulled her hand.
3. Reading from the evidence of the prosecutrix, it is submitted that
prosecutrix is a married lady. She has admitted that she is mother of three
children. It is further submitted that she had admitted that her husband was
working for the accused persons. It is admitted in para 6 and 7 of cross-
examination of the prosecutrix that she had not narrated this fact in her written
complaint that she was threatened by Pawan and Puneet. She further admitted
that she was afraid of visiting police station, though she had narrated the story
on the same night to her husband and thus, tried to justify the delay in lodging
of the FIR.
4. She has admitted that she had written the complaint as per the dictation
of the police personnel. It is admitted that she had not narrated this fact in the
FIR that when she had kept the match box on the boundary wall, her hand was
pulled. Thus, it is submitted that when three children of the prosecutrix, out of
whom, one son was aged about 12 years, a daughter was aged about 10 yeas
and the youngest son was aged about 3 years, were present at home then
conviction of the appellant is not based on any cogent evidence and he should
have been given benefit of doubt.
5. Shri Prahlad Choudhary, reading from the evidence of Vinod Kumar
Malik (PW-2), husband of the prosecutrix, submits that he has admitted that
one of the accused Pawan is known to him. He admitted that when he had
returned back to his home at about 11.30 p.m. on the date of the incident, his
wife had narrated the incident that accused Pawan had come to their house with
another boy who were under the influence of alcohol. It is pointed out that as
per Vinod Kumar Malik, accused had asked for a glass of water and when his
wife brought water then her hand was pulled. It is submitted that this witness
submitted that he had taken his wife on the very next day for lodging of the
report. It is pointed out that he had not given name of the second accused i.e.
Puneet but how police recorded name of Puneet in the statement (Ex.D-1) from
'A' to 'A' part, he cannot give any reason for the same.
6. On the other hand, Shri Anoop Sonkar, learned Panel Lawyer, in his
turn, supports the impugned judgment.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, there is material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecutrix and
her husband. Present appellant is Puneet. His name was not known either to the
prosecutrix or to her husband. PW-2 Vinod Kumar Malik has admitted that
name of other accused person was not known to him. He has admitted that in
Ex.D-1, he had not given name of Puneet and he does not know that how that
name was mentioned in the document.
8. In view of such facts, when name of the present appellant was not
mentioned. He was unknown. Then mentioning of such name in the complaint
(Ex.P-1) is an after though. This complaint is admittedly written by the
prosecutrix. No reason is given as to from where she came to know the name of
the present appellant. Thus, taking overall facts and circumstances of the case,
it is evident that prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
There are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecutrix and her
husband. None of other persons who were available at home like elder son of
the prosecutrix who was aged about 12 years or the landlord in whose house
prosecutrix was admittedly residing and who was admittedly at home, was
examined to prove the charge under Section 354 of IPC.
9. Thus, conviction having been recorded on the basis of surmises and
conjectures and there being no independent evidence and looking to the
contradictions in the evidence of the prosecutrix and her husband and also their
failure to point out as to from where the name of the present appellant came into
picture, it is a fit case for acquittal. Conviction and sentence of the present
appellant under Section 354 of IPC is hereby set aside. Impugned judgment
dated 01.10.2012 is also set aside, so far as it relates to the present appellant
Puneet @ Babu Thakurta.
10. In above terms, this appeal is allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
pp
