Babu Singh @ Baburaja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16872 MP

                                                          1


                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                      AT JABALPUR
                                                          BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA

                                         CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2357 of 2006

                          BETWEEN:-
                          BABU SINGH @ BABURAJA S/O
                          LAKHAN SINGH THAKUR, AGED
                          ABOUT 23 YEARS, VILL.PIPARIYA
                          TIWARI PS. PAWAI DIST. PANNA
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                                .....APPELLANT
                          (NONE )

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          TH. PS. PAWAI DIST. PANNA
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                             .....RESPONDENTS

                          (BY SHRI PRASANJEET CHATERJEE -PANEL LAWYER)


                                Reserved on :04.10.2023

                                Pronounced on : 11.10.2023



                                This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming

                          on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:

                                                        JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred against the judgement passed on 22.11.2006 by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Panna in Special Case No.33/2005 whereby the appellant

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 11-Oct-23 4:15:41 PM

Babu Singh was acquitted of the offence of Section 294 & 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and was convicted for the offence of Section 325 IPC sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine amount of Rs.10,000/- with the default clause to undergo RI of 1 ½ months in case of non payment of fine.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 01.05.2005 at around 4-5:00 p.m. complainant Bhura who belonged to scheduled caste category went to the agriculture field of Lakhan Singh. This field was taken on contractual basis by the complainant and his companion Murari. A dispute arose between the complainant Bhura and Lakhan Singh about the payment of amount spent on irrigation. In this dispute, Babu Singh intervened and gave obscene abuses to the complainant. On the next day i.e. 02.05.2005, when complainant was again there on the field of Lakhan Singh along with Pappu Pandey at around 12:00 p.m., a dispute again started between Babu Singh and complainant. Babu Singh insulted the complainant by his caste name and hurled obscene abuses. Complainant objected to it, upon which Babu Singh caused him injury with lathi. Pappu Pandey intervened in the incident. Father of Babu Singh namely Lakhan Singh also hurled abuses and insulted the complainant by his caste name. The matter was reported to the police and complainant was medically examined. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the matter went to trial. After the conclusion of trial, appellant Babu Singh was convicted for the offence of Section 325 of IPC.

3. The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that the impugned judgement passed by the learned trial court is unjust and illegal. A wrong conclusion was drawn holding that the prosecution case was established. No independent witness was examined by the prosecution. Only relatives

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 11-Oct-23 4:15:41 PM

of victim were examined and the incident was not proved even by the lone eye witness i.e. Dwarka Prasad @ Pappu. The defence witness was wrongly disbelieved by the learned trial court. It was ignored by the trial court that the complainant had suffered several injuries on account of an incident and appellant was falsely implicated in the case. It is therefore prayed that the appeal should be allowed by setting aside the judgement and the appellant should be acquitted.

4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that no interference is warranted either on the finding of conviction or the quantum of sentence.

5. Both the parties have been heard and record of the court below has been perused.

6. It is an admitted fact that apart from appellant, his father namely Lakhan Singh and his uncle Gajraj Singh were also implicated as accused in the trial court who were acquitted by the impugned judgement. The prosecution story itself reveals that the complainant i.e. Bhura had taken the field of appellant on contract and this incident occurred in that field. The FIR (Ex.P/7) suggests that on 2.05.2005 at around 1:30 at noon both the complainant and appellant were present on the same field. It is claimed by the complainant that he was holding a T-wrench and he asked the appellant whether it belonged to him, to which the appellant answered in negative and started assaulting the complainant. It may be relevant to note here that in this examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C the appellant has admitted the fact that complainant along with Pappu Pandey was present in his field at the time of incident and appellant was also present there. He has also admitted the fact that he asked the complainant to return the T-wrench and it is his defence that despite

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 11-Oct-23 4:15:41 PM

asked to return the T-wrench, complainant did not return it to him. According to the appellant, his T-wrench was stolen by the complainant and he had told the complainant that he would report the matter to the police. According to the appellant for the reason of this dispute, the complainant lodged a false report against him.

7. The above facts clearly established that there was a dispute between the two parties about returning the T-wrench. According to the complainant he was holding that T-wrench and queried the appellant whether it belonged to him while according to the appellant the complainant had stolen that T-wrench and was not returning it to him despite demand. In the light of these contrary narratives the evidence available on record is examined.

8. The facts narrated by the complainant in the FIR (Ex.P/7) have not been proved by him during his examination in chief. He had admitted the version of appellant by claiming that the appellant came to the spot asking for the T-wrench and to this the complainant replied that T- wrench was in the house which he would return but this made appellant furious and he started abusing and assaulting the complainant. This narration falsifies the claim made in the FIR that the complainant was holding a T-wrench and was asking the question to the appellant regarding its ownership. Dwarka Prasad (PW/2) has also supported the defence of appellant by asserting in his chief that appellant asked the complainant to return his T-wrench upon which complainant answered in positive and went to fetch the T-wrench. These statements have not been challenged by the prosecution. Hence, they prove the defence of appellant that complainant was not holding any T-wrench with him at the time of incident and he was asked by the appellant to return his T- wrench. Thus, the plea raised in defence about stealing the T-wrench of

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 11-Oct-23 4:15:41 PM

appellant by the complainant is proved from the prosecution evidence itself and it is also established that just preceding the incident there was a dispute between the two parties regarding return of that T-wrench. It appears that to conceal his culpability, the complainant gave an all together different colour to the incident by narrating in the FIR that he was having a T-wrench with himself and was asking the appellant whether it belonged to him. Had there been any bonafides on the part of complainant, he would not have twisted the facts to give a totally different version of story.

9. On the basis of above discussion it is established that complainant was having in his possession the T-wrench belonging to the complainant and had not returned it to the appellant. Thus, the enmity between the two parties is clearly established. It is also established that complainant did not stick to the facts that were narrated in the FIR. Further the independent witness Dwarka Prasad who was the alleged eye witness of the incident of assault, failed to state any fact regarding assault committed by the appellant. Khadia (PW/3) is the father of complainant who admittedly did not see the incident. No other independent witness was examined from the prosecution side.

10. The above discussion brings to the conclusion that the prosecution story is not supported by any independent witness and no eye witness could be produced to support the statement of complainant. The enmity and dispute just immediately preceding the alleged incident are the established facts in this case.

11. In the light of facts proved in the case, this Court does not find it safe to uphold the conviction of appellant on the sole testimony of complainant which has been found to be affected with contradictions and

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 11-Oct-23 4:15:41 PM

embellished with improvements. It may also be mentioned here that in order to implicate the appellant and his family members, other allegations were also made by the complainant side which were not found proved by the trial court itself. Therefore, the intention of complainant to conceal the real story and making exaggerated allegations against the appellant side can be gathered from the prosecution story itself.

12. Taking into consideration the above facts established in the case, this appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the offence of section 325 of IPC. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant shall be refunded to him. Appellant is released on bail, his bail bonds are discharged forthwith.

13. Let the copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for necessary compliance.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE

DevS

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 11-Oct-23 4:15:41 PM