Madhya Pradesh High Court

The State Of M.P. vs Raju @ Narendra Singh on 31 January, 2023

Author: Rajendra Kumar (Verma)

                                           1
                                                             Criminal Appeal No. 210/2001


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  AT JABALPUR
                                      BEFORE

    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)


                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2001

BETWEEN :-

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH.


                                                             ....APPELLANT

(BY SHRI DILIP SHRIVASTAVA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)


AND


RAJU @ NARENDRA SINGH S/O
NARBADA PRASAD AGED 32 YEARS
R/O PURI KHAJURAHO, DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR

                                                             ....RESPONDENT


(BY SHRI E.N. SIDDIQUI - ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF SHRI SATISH
CHATURVEDI, ADVOCATE)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Reserved on                           :       05/01/2023
        Pronounced on                         :       31/01/2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       This criminal appeal having been heard and reserved for
judgment/order, coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court
passed the following:
                                    2
                                                  Criminal Appeal No. 210/2001




                          JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred by the State being aggrieved by

the order dated 05.02.1998 passed by JMFC, Chhatarpur, in

Criminal Case No. 581/1998 whereby accused/ respondent has been

acquitted of the charges under Section 342, 294, 506-B & 325 of

IPC

2. Prosecution case, in short, is that, on 25.07.1996 complainant

Omprakash, after closing his shop at Gol Bazar, Khajuraho reached

his home at about 2:00 PM then Bablu reached there and informed

him that respondent/ accused was calling in the room of Brijendra.

When complainant reached at the room of Brijendra then

respondent/ accused closed the door and beaten him by pipe, abused

filthy language. During that time complainant fled away from there

by opening the door, then respondent/ accused threaten him not to

disclose the incident to the police. On the complaint of complainant

Omprakash FIR was lodged at Police Station- Khajuraho.

Complainant-Omprakash has been examined by Medical Officer.

After due investigation charge-sheet was filed and after trial, learned

trial court, acquitted the respondent- accused.

Criminal Appeal No. 210/2001

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that Court

below has not relied upon the evidence of complainant/ victim-

Omprakash and has not appreciated evidence available on record.

Specifically the evidence of Omprakash (PW/1), Devendra Prasad

Tripathi, ASI (PW/2), Pramod Kumar (PW/3), Smt. Asha Gupta

(PW/4)- wife of complainant, Dr. Rajesh Kumar Khare (PW/5),

Santosh Kumar Dwivedi (PW/7) & Dr. G.D. Rawat (PW/8). It is

also submitted that the findngs and conclusions drawn by the Court

below are perverse and hence liable to be set-aside.

4. Learned counsel for the accused/ respondent has supported the

impugned judgment of acquittal by submitting that the judgment has

been passed after due appreciation of entire evidence available on

record as well as considering the testimony of all the relevant

witnesses, there is no perversity in the impugned judgment of

acquittal.

5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the

record.

6. The trial Court has examined as many as 8 witnesses.

Omprakash (PW/1), Devendra Prasad Tripathi, ASI (PW/2), Pramod

Criminal Appeal No. 210/2001

Kumar (PW/3) (partly turned hostile), Smt. Asha Gupta (PW/4)-

wife of complainant, Dr. Rajesh Kumar Khare (PW/5), Santosh

Kumar Dwivedi (PW/7) & Dr. G.D. Rawat (PW/8) and on behalf of

defence, no witness was examined.

7. Complainant-Omprakash (PW/1) has categorically stated that

Bablu @ Santosh Kumar Dwivedi came and told that accused Raju

was calling him in the room of Brijendra and he went there, Raju

had closed the door, beaten him steel pipe, abused filthy language

and threatened him not to disclose the incident to police otherwise he

will kill him. It is also deposed by the complainant that on hue and

cry, his wife has come then accused fled away from the spot. It is

further stated that he submitted written application before Police

Station Khajuraho and he was examined by Medical Officer. He was

also treated at Chhatarpur Hospital. He sustained injuries in legs and

right hand. There were fractures in his legs. Smt. Asha Gupta (PW/4)

wife of the complainant stated that her husband Omprakash was

unable to walk and told her that he was assaulted by the respondent/

accused by steel pipe.

Criminal Appeal No. 210/2001

8. Dr. G.D. Rawat (PW/8) has examined (PW/1) Omprakash in

which he has found the following injuries:-

(i) One contusion in middle of right hand in the size of 7x5 cm.

(ii) One contusion in the left hand in the size of 5x2 cm.

(iii) One contusion in the left thigh in the size of 8x2 cm.

(iv) One contusion on lower part of right hand in the size of 5x2 cm.

(v) One lacerated wound on upper part of left leg in the size of 3x2x2 cm.

(vi) One lacerated wound above the injuries No. 5 and 7 in the size of 3x1x1 cm.

(vii) One lacerated wound on upper part of right leg in the size of 3x2x2 cm.

(viii) One lacerated wound on lower part of right leg in the size of 2x2x1 cm.

Dr. G.D. Rawat, (PW/8) stated that all injuries were caused by

hard and blunt object. Except injuries No. 1 and 5 all the injuries

were simple in nature. Complainant was referred to District Hospital

Chhatarpur for X-ray and reexamination of injuries No. 1 and 5. All

the injuries were within six hours of examination. MLC was proved

as Ex. P/12 by Dr. G.D. Rawat.

9. X-ray of PW/1 Omprakash has been done in District Hospital

Chhatarpur on 26.04.1996 and Dr. Rajesh Kumar Khare (PW/5) had

Criminal Appeal No. 210/2001

examined the X-ray. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Khare (PW/5) found that

there were fractures in Tibia of both legs and fracture in ulna bone in

right upper hand. In right upper arm, no fracture was found. X-ray

plates Ex. P -5, 6, 7, & 8 were proved by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Khare

and after examination of X-ray he has given his report as Ex. P/9.

Thus the testimony of injured witness Omprakash is supported by

medical evidence of Dr. Rajesh Kumar Khare (PW/5) and Dr. G.D.

Rawat (PW/8).

10. It is settled position of law that while dealing with the appeal

or revision against acquittal, findings given by the Courts below

generally should not be disturbed until and unless there is

substantive material available on record to reverse those findings

even if two views are possible, the view supporting to the accused in

the case should be taken.

11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaliram Vs. State of

Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 2773 has observed as under:-

"Golden thread which runs through the web of the

administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two

views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one

Criminal Appeal No. 210/2001

pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his

innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused

should be taken."

12. Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and

not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental

distinction between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague

conjectures from sure considerations.

13. The Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs.

Ramniwas reported in 2010(15) SCC 463 has considered the

similar aspect and has followed the ratio laid down in the case of

Kaliram (supra).

14. The trial Court has given much importance on extraneous

facts and thus disbelieved the prosecution case and on aforesaid

reasons acquitted the accused-respondent for the charges under

Sections 342, 294, 325 and 506 of IPC. However, place of incident is

a room, not a public place, thus Section 294 of IPC will not attract.

Criminal Appeal No. 210/2001

15. So far as the charges under Section 506-B is concerned, it is

established by the prosecution that threat was given by the

respondent-accused to victim Omprakash Gupta.

16. So far as charges under Section 342 of IPC is concerned, it is

well established by the prosecution that the respondent has wrongly

confined the complainant by closing the door.

17. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case

and evidence produced by the prosecution and also the ratio of law

laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, it

appears that there is conclusive evidence and the respondent must be

guilty, so finding of acquittal for the charges under Sections 342, 325

and 506-B is perverse and suffers from legal infirmity therefore, this

is a case where reversal by this Court is justified. Consequently, the

acquittal of the accused/ respondent for the offence punishable under

Section 294 of IPC is affirmed but the acquittal under Sections 342,

325 and 506-B of IPC is reversed.

18. During the course of argument, learned counsel for respondent

submits that it is an old case of the year 1996 and the offence

punishable under Section 342, 325 and 506-B of IPC are bailable

Criminal Appeal No. 210/2001

offence,. The respondent has suffered a lot in continuously defending

the case, therefore, a prayer is made that instead of imposing

sentence of confinement, only a sentence of fine may be imposed

upon the respondent-accused.

19. Taking into consideration the submission made by learned

counsel for the respondent and considering the fact that the incident

took place on 25.04.1996 respondent is facing proceeding for 26

years, it will be in the interest of justice to only impose the fine upon

the respondent-accused.

20. Accordingly the respondent-accused is sentenced as below:-

(i) For the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC respondent-accused is sentenced for imprisonment till rising of the Court with fine of Rs. 45,000/-.