Sahab Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 22723 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sahab Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 December, 2023

                                                             1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                             ON THE 29 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1695 of 2005

                           BETWEEN:-
                           SAHAB SINGH S/O BHAGWAT SINGH, AGED ABOUT 25
                           YEARS, VILL-KHATORA, KHURD, PS.BARAYTHA, TAH-
                           BANDA, DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI MAYANK SINGH - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY MS. SHAKTI TRIPATHI - PANEL LAWYER)

                                 Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01/08/2005 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, Distt. Sagar, in S.T. No.

374/2002, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 195 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year. In ST No.128/1995 (State Vs. Phool Singh and eight others) before Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, it was found that appellants Sahab Singh, Harpal Singh and Babu Singh have fabricated false evidence against Raghunath Singh, Bhanu Pratap Singh, Halke Bhaiya and Dashrath Singh and they have assaulted them. It was found that the appellant has given false evidence in ST. No.128/1998 and in

ST No. 14/1997. On complaint lodged by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, the case was registered in the Court of CJM and on committal, it was received for trial and vide impugned judgment, appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned herein above.

2. 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 c o nvic tio n. 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.

3. 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.

4. Both the parties have been heard and the record has been perused.

5. It is not in dispute that the appellant Harpal Singh and appellant Babu Singh both brothers of the present appellant have been acquitted vide judgment dated 26.12.2023 passed in Cr.A. No. 1693/2005 and vide judgment dated 13.12.2023 passed in Cr.A.No. 1694/2005. The judgment passed by Co- ordinate Bench in Cr.A. No. 1694/2005 read 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."

6 . 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.

7. The record of the trial Court be returned along with copy of this order.

8. With the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed as indicated above.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE K.S.