Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harpal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 26 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1693 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
HARPAL SINGH S/O BHAGWAT SINGH, AGED ABOUT 25
YEARS, R/O KHATORA-KHURD, P.S. BARAYTHA, TAH-
BANDA, DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI MAYANK SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI YOGENDRA DAS YADAV - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374
(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 challenging the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 01.08.2005 passed by the First Additional
Sessions Judge, Sagar District Sagar in Sessions Trial No.372/2002, whereby
the appellant has convicted under Section 195 of IPC and sentenced for 1 year
R.I.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention
of this Court towards the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court passed in CRA No.1694/2002 on 13.12.2023 whereby the appeal
preferred by the Babu Singh was allowed.
3. The allegations against the Babu Singh and the present appellant are
identical in nature. Both of them have deposed in S.T. 128/1995 and thereafter
new S.T. No.14/1997, wherein the Babu Singh and present appellant Harpal
Singh and Sahab Singh have turned hostile and therefore, the learned Sessions
Court has forwarded the complaint against them and this complaint were
registered as separate cases under Section 193 and 195 of IPC and after
registration of the complaint, CJM, Sagar has committed the same to the
Sessions Court.
4. The judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench reads as under:-
"Brief facts of the prosecution case are that Crime
No.45/94 was registered at Police Station Baraitha.
After the completion of investigation the charge-sheet
was filed against Phool Singh and eight others and S.T.
No.128/1995 was registered. In that case all the injured
persons including the present appellant Babu Singh
were declared as hostile witnesses and a judgment of
acquittal was passed. Later, one of the absconded
accused Raghuveer Singh was traced and arrested and
an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by
the prosecution. This application was allowed and
besides Raghuveer Singh, 4 more persons were arrayed
as newly added accused and were directed to be tried for
the same offence. A new Session Trial No.14/1997 was
registered and the trial of newly added accused
alongwith Raghuveer Singh was held. In this new
sessions trial the statements of injured persons including
that of present appellant Babu Singh were again
recorded and the judgment of acquittal was passed on
31.01.1998. The court, while passing the judgment,
gave the opinion that the present appellant Babu Singh
and other two witnesses Harpal Singh and Sahab Singh
turned hostile and deliberately gave false evidence in
both the sessions cases namely S.T. No.128/95 and
14/97, therefore, it was directed that all the three
persons namely Babu Singh, Harpal Singh and Sahab
Singh should be tried for the offence of Section 193 and
195 of IPC. The Presiding Judge filed a complaint
before the CJM, Sagar, which resulted in trial of
appellant for the said offence in S.T. No.372/2002 and
his conviction as well as sentence.
3. The grounds raised in the present appeal are that
the impugned judgment is bad in law and procedure as
it is based upon conjectures and surmises and not upon
any evidentiary material on record. It was not proved by
prosecution that appellant gave any false evidence with
intent to procure conviction. Further, there was material
contradiction, omission and improvement in the
statements of witnesses. Proper procedure was not
followed in registration of complaint against the
appellant and the prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, prayed that
the appeal should be allowed and the appellant be
acquitted.
4 . Learned counsel for the State has opposed the
present appeal for the reason that the impugned
judgment is based upon reasoned facts and cannot be
interfered with.
5. Both the parties have been heard and the record
has been perused.
6 . Record of the trial Court reveals that only one
witness was examined before it and he is the Record
Keeper B.P. Sharma (PW1), who was working under
complainant Surendra Tiwari, First Additional Sessions
Judge, Sagar, who had directed that a complaint be
registered against the appellant. The complaint which
was registered against the appellant was Ex.P1. Ex.P2
is the judgment passed by Shri Surendra Tiwari (First
Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar) in S.T. No.14/1997,
whereby registration of complaint was directed. Ex.P3
and P4 are the copies of the statements of appellant
recorded in S.T. No.128/95 and 14/97. Ex.P5 is the
order passed on the application filed under Section 319
of Cr.P.C.
7. Documents of Ex.P2 to P5 bear the seal of true copy
with the designation of First Additional Sessions Judge,
Sagar Shri Surendra Tiwari but there is no signature on
any of these documents to certify that the produced
copies are actually the true copies compared with the
original documents. By merely putting the seal on these
documents, they cannot be claimed to be the true copies.
Thus, it can be observed that Ex.P2 to P5 are the
uncertified and unverified photocopies which were not
admissible in evidence as such.
8 . Ex.P1 is the complaint made by Shri Surendra
Tiwari (First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar) in
which it has been claimed that appellant had given false
testimony in the Court in both the sessions cases namely
S.T. No.128/95 and 14/97. To bring home this
allegation, the prosecution was supposed to produce the
legally admissible copies of the statements of appellant
given before the concerned criminal Court and also
before the police for the purpose of comparison and
examination, but prosecution has failed to produce any
legally admissible copies of the statements of appellant
given before the Court of justice or before the police.
9. B.P. Sharma (PW1) who is the lone witness
examined in the case has not testified a word against the
appellant regarding the allegation of giving false
statement. According to him, he did not work as
deposition writer, therefore, his testimony is not relevant
to prove that appellant had given any false statement in
the Court. No comparison was made by this witness of
the statements of appellant. The concerned judicial
officer was not examined as a witness.
10. The trial Court has observed in para 2 of its
judgment that the fact of giving statements in S.T.
No.14/97 and 128/95 is admitted. The examination of
appellant conducted under Section 313 CrPC reflects
that in answer to question nos.4 & 5 he has admitted the
fact that he gave statements in both these sessions trial,
but has expressed ignorance whether documents marked
as Ex.P3 and P4 were his statements given in those two
cases.
11. Thus, despite there being partial admission on the
part of appellant, the prosecution has failed to prove
that any false statement was given by the appellant
before the Court concerned.
12. Taking all these facts into consideration, this Court
is of the observation that prosecution has failed to prove
its case by any stretch of imagination and evidence
produced by it was grossly insufficient. Thus, the
conviction of appellant under Sections 193 and 195 IPC
is set aside and this appeal is allowed."
5. As the Co-ordinate Bench has already decided the identical issue
arising out of the same criminal prosecution, the present appeal is also allowed
and the judgment of conviction and sentence are set aside. The appellant is
acquitted. The appellants are on bail thus, there personal bond and bail bond be
discharged.
6.The record of the trial Court be returned along with copy of this order.
7. With the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed as indicated above.
(VINAY SARAF)
V. JUDGE
R
