Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rupa Prasad Kol vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
1 CRA-3280-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3280 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
HARJEET SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Shukla - Government Advocate for the appellant -State.
None for the respondent.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 14915 of 2023
RUPA PRASAD KOL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Madan Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Shukla - Government Advocate for the State of M.P.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Heard.
2. These appeals are filed by the State of M.P. under Section 378 of
Cr.P.C. and by the complainant - Rupa Prasad Kol under Section 372 of
Cr.P.C being aggrieved of the judgment dated 1.11.2023 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Anuppur, district Anuppur, M.P. Scheduled Caste and
2 CRA-3280-2024
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 in Special Case No. 91
of 2021 recording a finding of acquittal of the respondent - accused- Harjeet
Singh.
3. The prosecution case in short is that once the complainant had
taken a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- in the year 2014 for higher education for his
son - Vinay Kol. This amount was obtained in cash from the accused -
Harjeet Singh @ 10% interest.
4. It has come on record, that the complainant - Rupa Prasad Kol was
working in the colliery and on getting his salary, accused used to withdraw a
sum of Rs.20,000/- per month for which he had kept his passbook and
cheque book etc. with blank cheque signed. He used to visit SBI bank,
Bhalumada and he used to withdraw money through cheque and used to
him Rs.10,000/- towards his personal expenses. Thereafter in 2018, as per
complainant, Rupa Prasad Kol, he had already paid Rs.22,18,000/- alongwith
interest but he asked for his amount from the accused person, who used to
give assurance that he will return the money. Later on he stopped picking
up the phone. In December 2018, when he complainant retired, then in
2019, he had received a sum of Rs.19,92,000/- out of which the accused-
Harjeet Singh had withdrawn Rs. 9,00,000/- in his account. Thereafter on
receipt of gratuity amount of Rs.15,45,000/-, the accused Harjeet had taken
Rs.500,000/- saying that they are towards the balance amount of interest.
Thereafter a case was filed under Section 420, 386, 506 of IPC, under
Section 3/4 of M.P. Riniyo Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam 1937 and under
Section (3) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 as amended in
3 CRA-3280-2024
2016.
5. It is submitted that there is one transaction of Rs. 4 lacs by which
sum of Rs.4 lacs was deposited by the complainant in the account of wife
of the accused, who has been examined as PW-4 and therefore, the
complaint stood proved yet the trial court has recorded the finding of
acquittal.
6. Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Public Prosecutor also submits that such
kind of acquittal will embolden such person, and, therefore, leave to appeal
be allowed.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record. It has come on record that caste certificate was produced but neither
SDM nor Reader or subordinate officer/clerk was examined in the court to
prove the case certificate. Therefore, once the prosecution failed to prove the
case of the complainant, charges under under Section (3) (v) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 inasmuch as prosecution has failed to
prove that the complainant belongs to scheduled tribe category.
8. Through bank statements are on record but the prosecution did not
deem it necessary to examine any of the bank official to prove them. There is
recovery of memo of certain cheque books, ATM cards passbooks etc. from
the possession of accused -Harjeet Singh, vide memo Ex.P-14 to Ex.P-16,
but PW-8 who had made recovery in Para-5 of his cross examination
admitted he had not recovery any paper belonging to the complainant -
Rupa from the house of the accused.
9. Close examination of Ex.P-14 to Ex. P-16 by which recovery was
4 CRA-3280-2024
made reveals that all the passbooks which are listed are that of one Darjeet
Singh, Son of Harjeet Singh, Abhijeet Singh, Son of Harjeet Singh,
Kamaljeet Kour, wife of Harjeet Singh, Tanupreet Singh, Son of Harjeet
Singh, Harjeet Singh himself and thus, it is evident that vide Ex.P-14 and
Ex.P-16, none of the passbooks of Rupa as was alleged by him to be in
possession of the accused Harjeet Singh was recovered. Similarly the
cheque which was recovered Ex. P-15 reveals that none of the cheque
books were belonging to the complainant Rupa Kol. Thus, allegation of the
complaint that his passbooks, ATM cards, cheque books were in possession
of the accused- Harjeet Singh is an allegation which could not substantiated
by the prosecution.
10. In view of such facts, recording of acquittal cannot be faulted
with. The judgment passed by the trial court is a well reasoned judgment
based on appropriate appreciation of evidence which have come on record.
For the failure of the prosecution/complaint to prove their own case, no
indulgence can be shown. Therefore, leave to appeal and fails and is
dismissed so also the appeal filed by the complainant in absence of any
cogent material fails is also dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
bks
