Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Bhawasar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 December, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 8 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 15176 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SURESH BHAWASAR S/O LATE SHRI DHANNALAL
BHAWASAR, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS R/O NEHRUGANJ ITARSI TAHSIL ITARSI
DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI BRIJESH KUMAR CHOUBEY - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION
ITARSI TAHSIL ITARSI DISTRICT
NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BHARAT LAL S/O SHRI DHANNALAL BHAWASAR,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O BEHIND SUHAG
MARRIAGE HALL BAJARANGPURA ITARSI
DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI TAPAN BATHRE - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1/STATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 372
of the Code of Criminal Procedure questioning validity of the judgment dated
05.10.2023 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Itarsi, District
Narmadapuram in Cr.A. No.34 of 2023, reversing the judgment of the trial
Court whereby the trial Court has convicted the respondent No.2 under Section
294 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Appellate Court while
giving the finding has not taken note of the statement of witnesses i.e. Suresh
(PW-1), Rahul (PW-4) and Sudesh (PW-5) whereas the conviction was based
upon the statement of these witnesses and, therefore, the judgment passed by
the Appellate Court reversing the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court is
not proper.
3. I have perused the judgment passed by the trial Court as also of the
Appellate Court.
4. As per the case of prosecution, on 06.11.2016, the complainant namely
Suresh has made a complaint that the accused-respondent No.2 along with
other co-accused came to the place i.e. Raj Talkies which was being run by him
and started abusing him. They threatened the complainant that he should not
visit the talkies because he had no right over the same and thereafter they
assaulted the complainant physically and caused injuries to him. The said
information was conveyed by the complainant to his sons namely Rahul and
Sudesh. They also came on spot and then Sudesh was also physically assaulted
by respondent No.2 and co-accused persons.
5. On a complaint made by the complainant, vide Crime No.701 of 2016 the
offence under Sections 294, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC got registered against the
accused persons. After conducting the trial, the trial Court taking note of the
statement of witnesses mainly Suresh (PW-1), Rahul (PW-4) and Sudesh (PW-
5) has found that no injury was caused by the respondent No.2 to the
complainant and other persons and as per the report of the doctor, nothing was
found over their bodies but only on the basis of statement of these witnesses,
convicted the respondent No.2 under Section 294 of IPC as he has abused the
complainant party.
6. The said judgment of the trial Court was assailed in appeal and the
Appellate Court has observed that as per the statement of doctor and MLC
report, though in the FIR, allegation of physical assault was made by the
complainant but no injury was found over his body. It was also observed by the
Appellate Court that the judgment of the trial Court was based upon the
statement of Suresh (PW-1), Rahul (PW-4) and Sudesh (PW-5) that when
accused came on spot, he started abusing the complainant but even as per the
contents of FIR, Rahul (PW-4) and Sudesh (PW-5) came on spot lateron when
they have been informed by the complainant Suresh and as such, they were not
the witnesses of abusement of the complainant. It is also observed by the
Appellate Court that indisputably, there was some civil dispute between the
parties and as such false complaint was made against the accused persons.
Considering the overall circumstances, the Appellate Court has found that a
false case got registered against the accused persons by the complainant party
and the trial Court without appreciating the fact and considering the actual
narration of witnesses i.e. Rahul (PW-4) and Sudesh (PW-5), convicted the
respondent No.2 under Section 294 of IPC.
7. In my opinion, the finding given by the Appellate Court is reasoned one
and was in consonance with the material available on record. The judgment of
the trial Court has rightly been set aside by the Appellate Court. I don't find that
there is any arguable and substantial point involved in this appeal. The
judgment passed by the Appellate Court does not suffer from material illegality
and infirmity. It is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and as such, no
interference is called for.
8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
rao
