Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamta And Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 6 February, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 06th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
Cr.A. No. 199 of 2004
BETWEEN:-
1. KAMTA S/O. PANCHU LUNIA AGED ABOUT
30 YEARS AGRICULTURIST.
2. BHARAT S/O NANDILAL LUNIA AGED ABOUT
22 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST
3. RAMANUJAN S/O NOKHELAL LUNIA AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS AGRICULTURIST
4. LOKCHAND S/O PANNALAL LUNIA AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS AGRICULTURIST
5. RAGHUVEER S/O MOTORAM LUNIA AGED
ABOUT 23 YEARS AGRICULTURIST
6. TULARAM S/O BETILAL LUNIA AGED ABOUT
25 YEARS AGRICULTURIST
7. MANSUKH S/O SHIVNATH LUNIA AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST
8. RAGHUVANSH S/O JAGESHWAR LUNIA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS LABOUR
9. RAMMILLAN S/O NOKHELAL LUNIA AGED
ABOUT 26 YEARS AGRICULTURIST.
2
ALL RESIDENTS OF GRAM BICHPURA SHAHPUR
THANA BADWARA DISTT. KATNI (M.P.)
.....APPELLANTS
(NONE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION BADWARA DISTT. KATNI
(M.P)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SHAHRUKH RIYAZ - PANEL LAWYER)
RESERVED ON : 18.12.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 06.02.2024
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, this court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of
Cr.P.C. against the order dated 15.01.2004 passed in S.T. No. 840/2000, by
Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Katni. By the impugned judgment, trial Court
has convicted the appellants under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo one year R.I. to each of the appellants and Section 353 read with
Section 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year to each of
the appellants (Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently).
2. According to the prosecution story, complainant Dinesh Kumar
Agrawal, Ranger was posted in Forest Range at Shailarpur on date
23.08.2000. A report was supplied by the Surakshka Samiti and thus he
approached at the spot and found that the appellants were carrying illegally
procured fallen logs of wood. The appellants were restrained by the
complainant and forest authority and thereafter, the articles have been seized
by the forest authorities and they prepared Seizure Panchnama of the same.
Meanwhile, some altercation started between appellants and the complainant
party and according to the prosecution case, in furtherance of the common
object of the appellants, caused injuries to the forest officials by means of
axe.
3. FIR was lodged by the complainant and police referred to him for
medical examination and after due investigation charge sheet has been filed
against the appellants.
4. Trial Court framed the charges against the accused which were denied
by the accused then after taking evidence, trial Court found them guilty
under Sections 148, 353 read with 149 of IPC and convicted them as above.
5. Appellants challenges the aforesaid findings and sentence on the ground
that learned trial Court failed to see that there is no evidence on record to
prove that accused were guilty. There are many major contradictions and
omissions in the evidence of the complainant and they are residents of same
village and serving in same department. So they are interested witnesses. No
independent witness has been produced by the prosecution in this case,
therefore, appellants pray that impugned judgment and sentence be set aside
and they be acquitted from the charges.
6. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of trial Court
and pray for dismissal of appeal.
7. Now question for determination is whether trial Court wrongly
convicted accused and appeal may be accepted?
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
9. First question arises as to whether on the date of incident, P.W. 2 ASI
Rukmani Pratap Singh received injuries on his body. Considering the
evidence of P.W. 2 ASI Rukmani Pratap Singh and evidence of doctor, it was
found that on the date of incident, P.W. 2 ASI Rukmani Pratap Singh had
made a complaint for pain on his left knee, shoulder and back. There is no
external injury on his body.
10. So considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses P.W. 2 ASI
Rukmani Pratap Singh and P.W. 3 Dr. Yashwanth Verma, it was found that
complainant had complaint of pain on his body but he was not having
external injuries.
11. Now question arises that as to whether appellants formed unlawful
assembly and in prosecution of the common object of unlawful assembly
with arms did commit riot and assaulted P.W. 1 Dinesh Kumar Agrawal and
P.W. 2 Rukmani Pratap Singh and obstructed them in executing their work as
public servants?
12. P.W. 2 Rukmani Pratap Singh in his evidence stated that he was posted
as ASI in SAF, 9th Battalion in Shailarpur forest range. On date 23.08.2000,
P.W. 1 Dinesh Kumar Agrawal, Ranger informed him that someone is cutting
the trees in Shailarpur range, then they went there and seized the trees,
meanwhile appellants came and assaulted them.
13. P.W. 1 Dinesh Kumar Agrawal, P.W. 4 Lalji Garg, P.W. 5 Himmat
Singh, P.W. 10 Diwakar Sharma, P.W. 11 Ajay Gupta, P.W. 12 Suryamani
Pandey and P.W. 13 Nagendra Prasad supported the evidence of P.W. 2 ASI
Rukmani Pratap Singh.
14. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that independent witnesses
P.W. 7 Bakhat Singh and P.W. 8 Sukal Singh are hostile, they have not
supported the prosecution witnesses and other prosecution witnesses were
government employees and they are working in same department, so they are
interested witnesses.
15. Considered the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They have been
cross-examined at length. It was found that they are intact in their cross-
examination. They have not been rebutted in their cross-examination. In case
of Smt. Dalvir Kaur vs. State of Punjab 1776 Cr.L.J. Page 418 SC, the
Apex Court has held thus :-
"Mere witnesses are related to each other so on
this ground, their evidence cannot be discarded, if are
reliable, cogent and truth-worthy."
16. In present case, considering the cross-examination of the prosecution
witnesses, it was found that there are some minor omissions and
contradiction, mere due to the lack of lapse of time after long recording of
their evidence and it was found that there are no substantial contradictions
and omission. So in view of this Court their evidence inspire confidence to
be believed.
17. It is not always necessary that case must be supported by independent
witnesses. If prosecution evidence are reliable, cogent and truth-worthy so
there is no need to support independent witnesses.
18. In present case all the prosecution witnesses are reliable, so in
considered opinion of this Court, considering the evidence of prosecution
witness, this Court agree with the finding of the trial Court and upheld the
conviction given by the trial Court.
19. The present case is of the year 2000. There is no evidence against
appellants that they have been previously convicted. They are coming to
Court since the year 2000.
20. Appellant Mansukh, Kamta, Bharat, Ramsujan, Lokchand, Raghuveer
and Tularam were in jail from 24.08.2000 to 15.09.2000 and Raghuwansh
and Rammillan were in jail from 04.10.2000 to 10.10.2000. So far as the
sentence is concerned, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case,
appellants have already remained in jail as mentioned above. They are facing
the criminal case since the year 2000. Hence to meet the interest of justice,
the appellants are sentenced for period already undergone.
21. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
information.
22. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
VKV/-
VINAY
VERMA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH,
ou=PRINCIPAL BENCH JABALPUR,
KUMAR
2.5.4.20=13db8761eb70b132ff402
73d1cd6cbbe7943345d9b89a3be
51b2002de183fc51,
postalCode=482001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
VERMA
serialNumber=24244EEED4BE511
2B2864A7944D29B2B81856B49A7
0689CB14D4EBD1688FF149,
cn=VINAY KUMAR VERMA
Date: 2024.02.21 18:06:57 +05'30'
