Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rammi @ Ramesh Panjwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 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 12 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1599 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
RAMMI @ RAMESH PANJWANI S/O CHUHADMAL
PANJWANI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TEA
STALL OWNER R/O VILLAGE AAMA NALA, P.S.
MANDLA, DISTRCIT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI EIJAZ SIDDIQUI - ADVOCATE - ON BEHALF OF SHRI S. C.
CHATURVEDI - ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. SHIKHA SINGH BAGHEL - PANEL LAWYER)
Reserved on : 18.01.2024
Pronounced on: 12.02.2024
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 judgment passed on
03.08.2005 by Special Judge the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), Mandla, in
Special Case No.39/2004, whereunder the appellant was convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 294 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one month for it and for the offence of Section 3(1)
(xi) of the Act for which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for six months and fine of Rs.500/- with additional term of rigorous
imprisonment for one and a half month, in case of non-payment of fine.
2 . The facts giving rise to the prosecution of appellant are that the
prosecutrix Smt. Rajkumari Bai was the Sarpanch of Marawi Gram Panchayat
Amanala and o n 05.02.2004, a Gram Panchayat meeting was going on in
Amanala. During that meeting, appellant Rummy alias Ramesh queried about the
records of the Panchayat to which Rajkumari replied that the complete record
of income and expenditure was with the auditor in the Deputy Director's Office,
Mandla, for inspection. Appellant Ramesh Panjwani started hurling abuses to
the prosecutrix and also insulted her by caste name. He even used criminal
force on her. Mahesh Bairagi, Laxmi Singh, Jhammi Bai and other villagers
present in the Gram Sabha intervened. While leaving the place, appellant also
threatened to kill her. The FIR was lodged at Police Station, AJK Mandla, at
Crime No. 15/2004. The investigation was undertaken and the charge sheet was
filed Upon the conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced
for the offence of Sections 294 of IPC and 3(1)(xi) of the Act as detailed
earlier.
3. The grounds raised in the appeal are that the appellant has been falsely
implicated in the case; the learned court below failed to see that there was
previous enmity between the appellant and complainant; the incident took place
on 05.02.2004 and matter was reported to police with a delay of eight days i.e.
on 14.02.2004; the court testimony of prosecutrix has many exaggerations
against her earlier narrative; abusive words allegedly used by the appellant were
not proved; only interested witnesses supported the prosecution story. It is,
therefore, prayed that the appeal should be allowed and the appellant should be
acquitted.
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. Counsel for both the parties have been heard, impugned judgment and
record of the trial Court have been perused.
6. In this case, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses out of which nine
have been examined to support the testimony of complainant Rajkumari Maravi
(P.W.5). Admittedly, the complainant was working as Sarpanch, Gram
Panchayat, Amanala, on the date of incident. Interestingly, caste certificate,
Ex.P-5, of complainant Rajkumari Maravi (P.W.5) has been issued by the
complainant herself. The legal position has been consistent throughout on this
issue that Sarpanch was never authorized to issue a caste certificate and, in the
present case, the same has been issued by the complainant herself, therefore
Ex.P-5 cannot be considered to be a reliable evidence to prove the caste of
complainant.
7. The trial court has observed in para 5 of its judgment that it is an
admitted fact that appellant is the member of upper caste while the complainant
is a member of Scheduled Caste. It appears that this observation is made on the
basis of answer given to Question No.1 during his examination under Section
313 Cr.P.C. by the appellant.
8. It has been held by the Apex Court in Sidhartha Vashisht alias
Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) AIR 2010 SC 2352 that the answers
given by the accused to the questions put under Section 313 Cr.P.C. are not
per se evidence because firstly, they are not on oath, and secondly, they are not
subjected to cross-examination. It is nevertheless subject to consideration by
the court to the limited extent of drawing an adverse inference against such
accused for any false answers given voluntarily and to provide an
additional/missing link in the chain of circumstances. Further, it has been held
by the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana (2010) 12 SCC
3 5 0 that conviction cannot be based merely on the statements made under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. The proper use of this examination is to give opportunity
o f explanation to the accused and appreciate the evidence led by prosecution
either to accept or reject it. Any admission made under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
cannot act as a substitute for the evidence of prosecution.
9. In the light of these facts and the limited scope of answers offered by
accused under his examination, this court is of the opinion that the trial court
was in error in holding the caste of complainant proved solely on the basis of
admission made by the appellant. The trial court did not undertake to examine
whether the appellant had sufficient occasion to get acquainted with the ancestry
and the caste of complainant. Thus, in the absence of proof by the prosecution
regarding the fact that complainant belonged to scheduled caste category, the
finding of conviction given under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act cannot be upheld.
10. Admittedly, the appellant and the complainant were at logger-heads
prior to the incident and this fact has been admitted even by the prosecution
witnesses. For this, reference can be made to the statements given by Jeevanlal
(P.W.1), Sewaram Bhalavi (P.W.2), Tei Singh (P.W.6) and Smt. Radhiabai
(P.W.7). Further, it has been argued that the FIR in this case was made after a
delay of almost eight days as the incident had occurred on 5.2.2004 but it was
reported on 14.2.2004. The appellant has relied upon the document of Ex.D-1,
which was a complaint made to the Thana Prabhari of Police Station,
Kotwali, district Mandla, on the date of incident by the appellant and other
signatories. In this complaint, it was reported that complainant Rajkumari
Maravi (P.W.5) was asked by the villagers to submit the account of income and
expenditure upon which she became furious and used criminal force against the
appellant. It is also mentioned therein that she abused the appellant in that public
meeting. It was, therefore, prayed in Ex.D-1 that Smt. Rajkumari Maravi should
be arrested but, instead of acting upon that complaint, a report of Ex.D-4 was
prepared in which it was aimed that the complaint was false as it was drafted for
self-defence and protection.
11. The above facts reveal that it was the appellant who first approached
the police authorities to take an action against the complainant, but complainant
being a powerful person of village, i.e. the Sarpanch, was not at all harmed and
her act was not investigated. Contrarily, a criminal case was registered against
the appellant on the basis of a complaint made after a delay of eight days. For
this, what prompted this delay is not disclosed in the FIR and Complainant
Smt. Rajkumari Maravi (P.W.5) is also silent about the reason for this delay.
12. According to prosecution, the appellant used filthy language to abuse
the complainant but the abusive words allegedly uttered by the appellant have
not been disclosed in the statements of Jeevanlal (P.W.1), Sewaram (P.W.2),
Laxmi Prasad (P.W.3) and Mahesh (P.W.4). Tei Singh (P.W.6) has admitted
that both the parties were using abusive language against each other. Some of
the witnesses have even admitted that it was complainant Smt. Rajkumari
Maravi (P.W.5) who had grabbed the collar of appellant.
13. These facts cumulatively bring to the conclusion that there was an
unexceptional delay on the part of complainant to report the matter to the police
and the reason for delay has not been explained either at the time of making FIR
or even during the court testimony. The enmity existing between the parties
from before the incident is an established fact. Only some of the witnesses have
corroborated the testimony of complainant on the use of abusive language to
her but there is also evidence available on record that the matter was first
reported by the appellant to the police authorities of Police Station, Kotwali,
district Mandla, complaining about the abusive and threatening behavior of the
complainant. This allegation has been even confirmed by some of the
prosecution witnesses. In this perspective of facts, this court does not find it
appropriate to hold the appellant guilty of the offence of Section 294 IPC and,
accordingly, he is given the benefit of doubt.
14. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted of the offence of Section
294 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act. His bail-bonds stand discharged.
The amount of fine deposited by the appellant, if any, be refunded to him.
15. Let a copy of this judgment be send to the trial court along with its
record for information and necessary compliance.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
ps
Date: 2024.02.15 16:52:53 +05'30'
