Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohan Lal Jaiswal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 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 13 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1021 of 2010
BETWEEN:-
1. MOHAN LAL JAISWAL W/O BHAJAN LAL
JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BELA P.S. JAISING NAGAR DISTRICT SAHADOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ASHOK S/O RAMKISHOR JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, R/O VILL.BELA, PS. JAISINGH NAGAR
DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAMKISHOR S/O BHANJU JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT
60 YEARS, R/O VILL. BELA, PS. JAISINGH NAGAR
DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. RAMKHELAWAN S/O BHOLA JAISWAL, AGED
ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O VILL. BELA, PS. JAISINGH
NAGAR DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTs
(BY SHRI MANISH SONI - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
JAISING NAGAR S SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI DILIP SINGH PARIHAR - PANEL LAWYER)
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that two of the appellants
namely Mohan Lal Jaiswal (appellant No.1) and Ram Kishor (appellant No.3)
are no more. Therefore, appeal stands abated for them.
2. Accordingly, appeal against appellants No. 1 & 2 is dismissed as
abated.
3. As far as appeal against remaining two appellants namely Ashok
(appellant No.2) and Ram Khelawan (appellant No.4) are concerned, it is
submitted that they are aggrieved of the judgment dated 29.04.2010 passed by
the Special Judge, Shahdol in Special Case No. 70 of 2008.
4. Appellants were charged under Section 294, 325/34, 506 Part-II of
IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Charge on them is that on 01.03.2008 at about
05:00 p.m. accused persons were abused complainant Mohan Lal at a public
place with abuses which caused annoyance to the complainant and then with a
common intention had beaten Mohan Lal with kicks and fists, resulting in
breakage of one of his teeth.
5. It is submitted that, complaint is due to earlier enmity and there is no
substance in the complaint. It is pointed out that Dr. S.K. Garg has admitted in
cross-examination that the injuries mentioned in Ex.P-2 are written by the dental
surgeon and not by him and all the three injuries mentioned in Ex.P-2 could be
accidental and can be caused due to fall from motorcycle or cycle. It is
submitted that two of the eyewitness namely Rajkumar Mishra has not
supported the prosecution case. He has mentioned that a fight had taken place
with Somnath Mishra but who was the persons involved, they are not known to
him. Similarly Guddu Tomar, too has not supported the prosecution case. It is
submitted that, in absence of any cogent evidence to support involvement of the
present appellant, it is a case for acquittal.
6. Shri Dilip Singh Parihar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State
supports the impugned judgment.
7. I have gone through the evidence of victim Somnath. He has deposed
that he is the member of Scheduled Tribes community. His Caste Certificate is
Ex.P-4. But there is an ambiguity in this caste certificate. The incident took
place on 01.03.2008, this caste certificate was prepared subsequent to the
incident on 25.03.2008.
8. In the examination in chief, complainant Somnath has deposed that the
incident took place in the year, 2008. He does not remember the month. He was
working as Mistri for the Contractor KNDC Company which was make road.
At about 04:00 p.m., Mohan, Ramkhilawan, Ashok and Ramkishore all four in a
drunken state surrounded him and Mohan had hit him with a blow and asked
him for expenses then he ran away and approached Supervisor Guddu Singh
Tomar, Moti Ram Pandey, Raj Kumar Mishra that accused were beating him
and he be saved, then he was taken to the Camp, when incident came to an end
and thereafter, he reported the matter to the Police.
9. It is evident that there are material contradictions in this evidence viz a
viz the written complaint which was given. There is no mention of the fact that
he was abused by the accused persons, later on he has improvise his statement.
Another contradiction is that in the written complaint Ex.P-5, it is no where
mentioned that the accused persons were drunk. It is not mentioned that they
demanded money. There is ambiguity in regard to time also. In Ex.P-5 time is
mentioned as 05 p.m. whereas in the Court statement he has given time of the
incident as 04:00 p.m.
10. The another ambiguity is that in the written complaint Ex.P-5 it is
mentioned that accused persons were abusing Guddu Tomar and when
intervened then they offered casteist remarks to the complainant, whereas the
statements given before the Court are just contradictory to the statements given
in the written complaint. This witness had admitted that, if the statement which
are given by him in the court are not mentioned in the written complaint Ex.P-5,
then he cannot give any reason for the same. The allegation of giving a punch
on face is of Mohan. Mohan is already dead. His appeal is abated. That
allegation is not against any other accused persons.
11. Complainant has not deposed to which of the accused was abusing
him with which of the abuses. He has admitted that complainant knows names
of only two persons namely Mohan and Ram Khelawan and names of other
two accuses persons were given by Guddu Singh Tomar. Guddu Singh Tomar
has not supported the prosecution case. He has turned hostile. He has not been
re-examined by the prosecution.
12. Thus, implication of two persons other than Mohan and Ram
Khelawan is also not made out. There is no specific allegation on the part of
Ram Khelawan too have use abusive language against the complainant so to
attarct the provisions of Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act.
13. Thus, in view of the law laid down by co-ordinate Bench of this
Court on the case of Jasrath Singh and another Vs. State of M.P. 2005(4)
MPLJ 363 this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the surviving
appellants is not based on any cogent evidence but has been made on the basis
of surmises and conjcture and therefore, such conviction cannot be sustained in
the eyse of law. Therefore, conviction of the appellants namely Ashok and Ram
Khelawan under Sections 294, 325/34, 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 3(1)(10)
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is
hereby set aside.
14. In above terms this Criminal Appeal of the Ashok and Ram Khelawan
is allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
Amitabh
