Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandrabhan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2024
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2511 of 2006
BETWEEN:-
CHANDRABHAN SINGH S/O KUBER SINGH THAKUR,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O HATWA, PS. PRAKASH
BAMHORI, CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI L. N. SAKLE - ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PRASSANJEET CHATTERJEE - PANEL LAWYER)
Reserved on : 25.1.2024
Pronounced on: 02.02.2024
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed on
6.12.2006 by Special Judge, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"),
Chhatarpur, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence of Section 353
IPC and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-
with a default clause to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment, in case of
non-payment of fine.
2 . The prosecution case may be summed up as, the appellant was
working as teacher in Shiksha Guarantee School at Tulsiyapurwa, Gram
Panchayat, Hatwa, district Chhatarpur, under the Education Guarantee Scheme;
on the date of incident i.e. 24.7.2004 he was conducting the elections of
Guardian-Teacher Association; at around 1:00 p.m. his wife and brother were
present along with other persons in the school; appellant Chandrabhan along
with Babulal and Bhola Raikwar came there and queried whether his daughter
was admitted in school or not; complainant Jagjeevanram replied that he would
complete the task tomorrow as there were elections on the date of incident;
appellant reacted to it very abusively; he even threatened the complainant; he
started assaulting him and when the brother of complainant Mahesh Kumar and
wife of complainant Sheila Devi came to rescue him, they both were given filthy
abuses by appellant and were physically assaulted; appellant also gave life
threats in case they reported the matter to the police; at Crime No.29/04 FIR
was registered in Police Station, Prakash Bamhori, district Chhatarpur, on
written complaint made by complainant Jagjeevanram on the next day. The
matter was investigated; the charge-sheet was filed and the trial was
commenced. Under the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted and
sentenced as aforesaid while two other persons, namely Babulal and Bhola, who
faced the trial with him, were acquitted by the trial court; appellant too was
acquitted of the offence of Sections 294, 323/34 and 506 Part II IPC and
Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
3 . The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that the learned trial
court grossly erred in holding that on 24.7.2004, complainant Jagjeevanram was
working as public servant and was performing his official duties; there was no
evidence to prove that appellant deterred him from his duties and committed
assault on him; the finding of trial court in holding the appellant guilty of Section
353 IPC is perverse and contrary to law; only on the basis of closely-related
witnesses, this conviction was held and no independent witness supported the
prosecution story; the father of complainant, namely Baijnath (P.W.7) was not
believed even by the trial court; it was observed in the judgment that the
statements of Sheila Devi were also unworthy of credit; there were serious
contradictions in the testimonies of complainant Jagjeevanram, his wife Sheila
Devi and his brother Mahesh Kumar, still the trial court ignored these material
discrepancies. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal should be allowed and the
appellant should be acquitted or he should be punished with admonition under
Section 360 Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the present appeal on the
ground that the judgment passed by the trial Court is based upon the reliable
evidence available on record and there is no reason to doubt the prosecution
case, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and record
of the court below.
6. In all, there were total ten witnesses examined by the prosecution in
this case and they are; complainant Jagjeevanram (P.W.4), his wife Sheila Devi
(P.W.5), his father Baijnath (P.W.7) and his brother Mahesh Kumar (P.W.9).
The other witnesses examined in this case are Asharam (P.W.1) and Shiv Karan
(P.W.2) but both of them, despite being the alleged eyewitnesses, have not
supported the prosecution story. Dr. S. Prajapati (P.W.3) had examined the
injured. Sukhdev Prasad Awasthy (P.W.6) had given the certificate of duty.
Head Constable Biharilal Mishra (P.W.8) had the FIR registered and SDO(P)
Pankaj Shrivastava (P.W.10) had the matter investigated.
7. As discussed earlier, the independent witnesses failed to support the
prosecution story and only complainant Jagjeevanram (P.W.4), his wife Sheila
Devi (P.W.5), his father Baijnath (P.W.7) and his brother Mahesh Kumar
(P.W.9) have given corroborative evidence. From the testimony of these
witnesses, it is established that appellant had gone to the Shiksha Guarantee
School in Tulsiyapurwa and had asked the teacher working there, namely
Jagjeevanram, why his daughter was still not admitted in the school. Although
this fact has been admitted by the appellant that complainant Jagjeevanram was
working as teacher in that school but prosecution has relied upon the certificate,
marked as Ex.P-9, which was issued by Sukhdev Prasad Awasthy (P.W.6)
mentioning that the complainant was working in that school as a teacher on the
date of incident. This witness has replied in his cross-examination that before
issuing the letter of Ex.P-9, he called for the record of Janpad Shiksha Kendra
and only on that basis he gave this information. He has not been asked any
further question by the defence and, thus, the facts mentioned in Ex.P-9 on the
basis of official record have not been challenged by the defence. Ex.P-9,
therefore, proves that complainant Jagjeevanram was working in the Shiksha
Guarantee School of Tulsiyapurwa as a public servant, was present in the
school on 24.7.2004 at the time of incident and he was authorizedly conducting
the election to Guardian-Teacher Association.
8. The statements of complainant and his relatives reveal that only those
persons could contest the election to this Association whose children were
studying in the school, therefore the appellant had a grievance that he was not
entitled to contest the election for the simple reason that his daughter was not
given admission in the school by the time the elections were held and it appears
from the evidence of prosecution itself that the complainant was not yielding to
the request of appellant to get his daughter enrolled in the school before
conducting the elections as he had told the appellant that the admission would
be given on the next date. Thus, the grievance of appellant was unresolved and
this was not a case of merely enrollment of his daughter in the school but also
of participating in the election to the Guardian-Teacher Association.
9. The statements of father of complainant, namely Baijnath (P.W.7), can
be referred to for reaching to the conclusion that in the election held by
complainant, his relatives were elected on prime posts. It has been suggested by
the defence that the complainant was not acting fairly in holding the elections as
he did not get the names of children of many prospective candidates enrolled in
the school and thereby rendered them ineligible for elections. The grievance of
appellant was also rested on this partisan approach of complainant but still can
it be said that this grievance gave a right to the appellant to use criminal force
against the complainant and the answer is undoubtedly in negative.
10. The statements of complainant Jagjeevanram, his wife Sheila Devi and
his brother Mahesh Kumar as well as the statements of Dr. S. Prajapati (P.W.3)
have proven beyond doubt that appellant used criminal force against the
complainant Jagjeevanram causing him simple injury on his back. This force
was used only for the reason that complainant was discharging his official duty
of conducting elections to the Guardian-Teacher Association. Ex.P-9 and the
statements of Sukhdev Prasad Awasthy (P.W.6) have proved that the
complainant was discharging his official duty at the time of incident. Section
353 IPC makes every such use of criminal force punishable which is exercised
on a public servant in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done
by such public servant in the lawful discharge of his duty. Though the act of
complainant gave a cause of anguish to the appellant as it was not fair but there
is no evidence available on record to reach to the conclusion that the
complainant was acting beyond the scope of his official duty, therefore, the
provision of Section 353 IPC is attracted in the facts of the case and the
decision of trial court in holding the appellant guilty for that offence cannot be
interfered with.
11. This appeal accordingly fails so far as the finding of conviction under
Section 353 IPC is concerned.
12. The appellant was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment
and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence of Section 353 IPC. Having considered the
nature of crime and the circumstances in which it was committed, the period of
sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the
appellant while the fine amount is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-, out of which
Rs.4,000/- shall be paid to the complainant Jagjeevanram. In case, the appellant
fails to pay the enhanced part of the fine amount then he shall undergo a period
of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months. The enhanced fine
amount shall be paid within two months from the date of this judgment.
13. Appellant is released on bail. His bail-bonds stand discharged.
14. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court along with its
record for information and necessary compliance.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
ps
Date: 2024.02.03 11:19:50 +05'30'
