Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bablu Kachi & Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 2 February, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 02nd OF FEBRUARY 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1346 of 2004
BETWEEN:-
1. BABLU KACHI S/O MUNNALAL KACHI, AGED 22
YEARS, R/O PADELA TOLA BAMHANI KALA, P.S.
SAIKHEDA, DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. MUNNA S/O RAJJU KACHI, AGED ABOUT 42
Y E A R S , PADELA TOLA, BAMHANI KALA,
SAIKHEDA, DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. KHEMCHAND S/O RAMCHARAN KACHHI, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KAMTI PS
GADARWARA, DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI K.S.BAHEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION,
SAIKHEDA, DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS.SEEMA SAHU - PANEL LAWYER)
Reserved on : 04.12.2023
Pronounced on: 02. 02.2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
These appeals having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, JUSTICE HIRDESH passed the following:-
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal u/s 374 of Cr.P.C. has been directed against judgment
o f conviction dated 05.8.2004 passed in S.T.No.56/2003 by Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur. By the
impugned judgment all the appellants/accused have been convicted for offence
under section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each.
Appellant No.1 has also been convicted for offence u/s 436 IPC and sentenced
to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of
fine amount to suffer S.I. for 03 months.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.5.2002 at about 06 p.m.
complainant/Bhanupratap was listening Tap-recorder loudly, therefore, appellant
No.1/accused (Bablu Kachhi) stopped the Taprecorder. Thereafter, at about 11
p.m. the accused/appellants came with 'lathi' & 'Danda' and abused and
assaulted him and set fire on the hutment of complainant-Bhanupratap. An FIR
was lodged and after due investigation Police filed the charge-sheet against the
appellant before the competent Court.
3. The trial Court framed charges against the accused/appellants which
were denied by them and pleaded trial. The trial Court after recording evidence
found the appellants/accused guilty and convicted and sentenced as has been
stated hereinabove.
4. The appellants being aggrieved by the impugned judgment have filed
instant appeal and submitted that version of the prosecution witnesses is
contradictory. Since accused-Bablu has stopped the Tap-recorded, therefore,
complainant went to Police Station to lodge FIR, but because no case was
made out, therefore, Police did not lodge FIR and hence, the complainant
himself set the fire on his hut. It is further stated that eye witness-Parwati Bai
(PW.4) has clearly stated that accused-Bablu has not committed any offence.
The appellants have been falsely implicated in the crime and hence, they prayed
for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and prayed for their
acquittal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for State supported the judgment of the trial
Court and prayed rejection of instant appeal.
6. Now the question arises whether the judgment of the trial Court
convicting and sentencing the appellants/accused is wrong and whether instant
appeal may be allowed.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing record of the
trial Court it is found that PW.1-Ramkishan stated in his examination-in-chief
that when he was listening tap-recorder, at that juncture accused/appellant-Bablu
came and stopped the tap-recorder. Thereafter, appellants/accused came and
set fire on the hutment and assaulted Bhanupratap (PW.2). He lodged FIR
against appellants. Thereafter, Police referred him for medical examination.
PW.2 (Bhanupratap), PW.3 (Nanhi Bai) and PW.4 (Parvati Bai) have supported
the prosecution story. Considering the cross-examination of PW.1-Ramkishan
it has been found that there was cross-examination by the defence lawyer at
length. But, in cross-examination he denied all suggestions given by the defence
lawyer. There is no substantial omission or contradictions in his cross-
examination. His evidence was supported by PW.2 (Bhanupratap), PW.3
(Nanhi Bai) & PW.4 (Parvati Bai). Dr.R.K.Patel (PW.7) who examined
Ramkishan (PW.1) found that there was no external injury on his body, but he
was complaining of pain in head, stomach and neck.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no
independent witness in this case. All witnesses are interested witnesses and
family members of each other. So, they are not reliable. In Smt. Dalbir Kaur Vs.
State of Punjab, 1976 Cr.L.J. 418 (SC), the Apex Court has observed that
evidence of witnesses cannot be discarded, if found reliable, cogent and
trustworthy, merely on the ground that these witnesses are related to each other.
In the present case, considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses it is
found that they were intact in their cross-examination. They all have supported
each other. Some minor omissions or contradictions found in their evidence is
due to lack of literacy and on account of lengthy cross-examination. So, in view
of this Court they are reliable witnesses and inspire confidence and hence, there
is no reason to disbelieve them. So taking into consideration all above facts, this
Court of the view that judgment of conviction of appellants/accused is just and
proper. Therefore, this Court upholds the conviction of appellant No.1/Bablu in
respect of offences under sections 436 & 323 of IPC and other appellants for
offence under section 323 of IPC.
9. The prosecution case is of 2002. Now, long period of about 20 years
has already elapsed. The appellants are more than 60 to 75 years of age. They
are first offenders. They have been attending the court regularly. So considering
the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account
that appellants/accused persons, Bablu and Munna have remained in custody
from 05.8.2004 to 05.10.2004 and appellant-Khemchand from 05.8.2004 till
19.11.2004. No useful purpose would be served to again send them to jail for
serving the remaining jail sentence. Hence, to meet the ends of justice, their
sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.
10. In view of aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of
appellants by the trial Court is upheld. So far as the sentence awarded by the
trial Court is concerned, the same is modified to the period already undergone
by the appellants in jail custody. They are on bail. They be discharged of their
personal and bail bonds.
11. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance and record. Let original record of the court below be
also sent back.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
RM
