Kamal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7711 MP

                                                                                                             1

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                            AT GWALIOR
                                                 BEFORE

                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK

                                    ON THE 11th OF MAY, 2023

                          CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1754 of 2023

        Between:-

        KAMAL SINGH S/O SHRI SADHU SINGH, AGED
        ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O SEETA NAGAR POLICE
        STATION DEHAT DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....PETITIONER
        (BY SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR TYAGI - ADVOCATE)
        AND

         STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
         THROUGH POLICE STATION DEHAT DISTRICT
         BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                                   .....RESPONDENT

        (BY SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH - DY. ADVOCATE GENERAL)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      This revision coming on for hearing under direction matter this day, the
court passed the following:
                                  ORDER

1. The present revision petition under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is

preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence dated 19-04-2023 passed by the VII Additional Sessions

Judge, Bhind in Criminal Appeal No.91/2022 confirming the judgment

of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind in

Criminal Case No.509/2019 whereby petitioner has been convicted as

under:

S.No.            Offence u/s      Imprisonment        Fine      Default
                                                                Stipulation
1          147 of IPC             6 months' RI    Rs.100/-      15 days' RI
2          332 of IPC             6 months' RI    Rs.200/-      15 days' RI
3          353 of IPC             6 months' RI    Rs.200/-      15 days' RI

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on 25-07-2018 the complainant

Constable Jitendra Singh along with other squad members were going to

produce some undertrials before the Court at Bhind and in the Court

campus, relatives of those undertrials including the present petitioner

met and tried to serve some food articles to the undertrials and when

they were restrained by the complainant, petitioner along with all

undertrials threatened him that they are accused of 7 murders and no one

can stop them and thereafter all these persons started assaulting him.

Complainant was saved by the other squad members from these persons.

On complaint, FIR Ex-P/2 was registered against petitioner and other

persons at Crime No.385/2018 under Sections 353, 332, 147, 294, 506

of IPC. Accused were arrested and matter was investigated and challan

was filed in the matter.

3. Before the trial Court -Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind, petitioner

abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. Prosecution examined 17 witnesses

in support of its case and in defence, accused/petitioner has been

examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. After recording of evidence

ocular as well as documentary and hearing the submission of counsel for

the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as

referred above.

4. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial

Court has been challenged by the petitioner by preferring criminal

appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the said appeal upholding the

conviction recorded by learned trial Court as referred above.

5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts

below erred in convicting the petitioner for the offence referred above.

There are material contradictions and omissions between the statements

of prosecution witnesses and such aspect has not been considered by the

trial Court. There is no independent witness in the case to support the

story of prosecution. The story of prosecution appears to be an

improbable misbehaviour with a police personnel in the presence of 8

other police personnel is doubtful. Further the FIR is delayed by two

days for which no plausible explanation has been given by the

prosecution. Thus, the trial Court erred in convicting the petitioner.

6. Alternatively, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the

date of judgment of conviction by the appellate Court (19-04-2023),

petitioner is in jail and he is ready to abide by each and every conditions

as imposed by this Court, therefore, his case for undergone by enhancing

the fine amount as this Court deems fit, may be considered.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the

prayer and supported the judgments passed by the Courts below. The

prayer of undergone has also been opposed by submitting that the act of

petitioner does not deserve any leniency.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. It is a case where petitioner is facing the allegation of causing marpeet

with the complainant by kicks and fists and the complainant stood firm

to his version which was supported by other prosecution witnesses who

were present on the spot along with complainant.

10. From the statements of witnesses, it is reflected that the petitioner not

only tried to threaten the police personnel but caused marpeet with him

in front of other police personnels and he along with undertrials openly

said that let see how you stop us, they have murdered seven persons and

threatened the complainant to kill him and to implicate in false case. It is

a clear case of deterring and threatening a public servant in discharge of

his official duty. The aforesaid version of the complainant was supported

by other witnesses and the said behaviour of the petitioner indicates that

he has no fear of police and no respect to law.

11. The prosecution witnesses Vijay Singh Rajput, Jitendra Singh, Pappan

Yadav, Upendra Singh, Santosh Pal, Bheron Singh and Bharti

categorically stated that the petitioner was trying to serve the food

articles to the undertrials who were to be produced in the Court and

when he was stopped by the complainant, all these persons started

hurling filthy abuses and assaulted him. Thus, the prosecution story is

well supported by the other prosecution witnesses. Even otherwise, the

case of prosecution cannot be discarded merely on the basis that all the

witnesses are Government witnesses. Government witnesses are reliable

witnesses and on the basis of their statements, conviction can very well

be recorded.

12. In view of the above, looking to the fact that the prosecution story has

been duly supported by the other prosecution witnesses and the

complainant stood firm on his own version and learned counsel for the

petitioner failed to assign any error in the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by the Courts below, this Court

is of the considered view that both the Courts below did not commit any

error in convicting the petitioner. Prosecution succeeded in proving its

case beyond reasonable doubt. The Courts below duly vetted the rival

submissions and thereafter passed the impugned judgment and

conviction against the petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

K. Prakashan Vs. P.K.Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 and T.

Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 held that if

two views are possible and one view is taken by the trial Court after due

appreciation of evidence then unless sheer perversity or illegality crept

in to the judgment of trial Court, the scope of interference is limited.

13. So far as the submission of undergone put forth by learned counsel for

the petitioner is concerned, since it is a case of assault or criminal force

to deter public servant from discharge of his duty and role of the

petitioner has been duly assigned and supported by all the prosecution

witnesses, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, petitioner

does not deserve any leniency. Hence, his prayer for undergone is hereby

rejected. Besides this, much leniency has been shown by the Courts

below in sentencing the petitioner.

14. Resultantly, the criminal revision preferred by the petitioner is hereby

dismissed affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

passed by the Courts below. Petitioner is in jail. He shall serve the remain

jail sentence.

15. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information.

(Anand Pathak) Judge Anil*

ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA 2023.05.16 11:00:24 +05'30'