Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Lal Barman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 February, 2024
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2389 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
ARVIND LAL BARMAN S/O
MANIKLAL BARMAN, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, GRAM
KARODHI THANA
SHAHPUR,DINDORI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
........APPELLANT
(NONE)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE
STATION DINDORI DISTRICT-DINDORI.
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. CHANDRAKANT PAL - PANEL
LAWYER )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESERVED ON : 01.02.2024
PRONOUNCED ON 29.02.2024
_______________________________________________________________
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on for
pronouncement on this day, the court passed the following:-
JUDGEMENT
The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 29.10.2005 passed by Special Judge, Dindori in Special Case
No.32/2005 , whereby appellant has been convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for six months and with fine amount of Rs.500/-, under Section 294 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month and under Section 506-B and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months with default stipulation .
2. Prosecution story in brief is that:-
vfHk;kstu dgkuh lkjka'k ;g gS fd izkFkhZ ------- ch-vkj-lh- dk;kZy; 'kgiqjk
ftyk&fM.MkSjh esa leUo;d ds in ij dk;Zjr FkhA fnukad 18-2-05 dks fnu ds yxHkx
11-00 cts vkjksih vjfoan ceZu ch-vkj-lh- dk;kZy; 'kgiqjk igqapkA vkjksih us izkFkhZ --------
dks dgk fd eSa lekpkj i= dk laoknnkrk gwWa] rqe yM+fd;ksa dh HkrhZ djrh gks] muesa ls
eq>s ,d yM+dh vkSj 50]000@& :i;s pkfg,A D;ksafd eq>s ekywe gS fd rqe HkrhZ esa
fj'or ysrh gksA izkfFkZ;k us dgk fd eSa yM+dh cspus dk /ka/kk ugha djrhA rqEgs
50]000@& :i;s uxn vkSj yM+dh ugha nwaxhA mlh le; vfHk;qDr us izkfFkZ;k dks dgk
fd eknjpksn] os';k] fNuky rqe Lo;a os';k dk /ka/kk djrh gks vkSj lrh&lkfo=h cu
jgh gksA ml le; vuhrk [kfVd] vk'kkckbZ vkSj lquhrk ogkW mifLFkr FksA mUgksaus mDr
ckrsa lquhA vfHk;qDr us ;g Hkh /kedh nh fd rqe esjk dqN ugha fcxkM+ ldrsA ;fn esjs
f[kykQ Fkkus esa fjiksVZ dh rks rqEgsa tku ls ekjdj Qsad nwaxkA ml le; tuf'k{kd
lkseizdk'k ikBd Hkh ogkW cSBk FkkA ?kVuk ds le; vfHk;qDr us izkFkhZ ----------- tks xksaM
vuqlwfpr tutkfr lekt dh efgyk Fkh] mls tkfr;rk ds vk/kkj ij viekfur vkSj
vfHkoLr dkfjr fd;kA ------------- us ?kVuk dh fyf[kr fjiksVZ dhA mldh izfr efgyk
izdks"B] ekuo vf/kdkj vk;ksx] iqfyl v/kh{kd fM.MkSjh rFkk Fkkuk izHkkjh 'kgiqjk dks Hkh
nhA vkosnu i= dh tkap ds ckn fn0 22-2-2005 dks Fkkuk vk-tk-d- fM.MkSjh esa vijk/k
Ø-&4@05 ds :i esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ iz0ih&6 ntZ dh x;hA fnukad 18-4-05 dks
vkjksih dks fxjkQ~rkj fd;k x;kA vuqla/kku iw.kZ dj vfHk;ksxi= lh-ts-,e- fM.MkSjh ds
U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA fnukad 8-6-2005 dks mDr izdj.k dfeV fd;k x;k] tks
fnukad 5-7-05 dks lquokbZ ds fy, bl U;k;ky; dks izkIr gqvkA
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that prosecution has
proved its case by leading cogent evidence & has proved guilt of the appellant
beyond reasonable doubt & there are no grounds to interfere with the same.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the State & have perused/examined record
of trial Court & grounds taken by the appellant/accused in the appeal memo
minutely & carefully.
5. So far as conviction of appellant under Sections 294 and 506B of IPC and
Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act is concerned, complainant (PW-1) has
deposed in her examination-in-chief as under :-
1- eSa -------------------------- ds in ij dk;Z djrh FkhA vkjksih vjfoan oeZu Lo;a dks
laoknnkrk dgrk FkkA fiNys o"kZ vDVwcj ekg esa vkjksih vjfoan oeZu ch-vkj-lh-
dk;kZy; 'kgiqjk esa vk;kA vfHk;qDr us vkdj dgk fd eq>s ,d yM+dh rFkk ipkr
gtkj :i;k pkfg,A eSaus dgk fd D;k eS yM+dh cspus dk /ka/kk djrh gwa\ eSaus vfHk;qDr
ls dgk fd rqe iSlk fdl ckr dk ys jgs gksaA vfHk;qDr us dgk fd xksMfu;k eknjpksn
fNuky oS';k rqe /ka/kk djrh gkSa D;k esjs fy, bruk Hkh ugha djk ldrh gSA D;k eSa cqjk
gwA\ vfHk;qDr us esjs fy, tkfr; vieku 'kCnksa dk iz;kx fd;kA xkyh lqu dj eS cgqr
vkgr gq;hA vHknz yxkA eSaus dgk fd eS fjiksVZ d:xhA rks vfHk;qDr us dgkr fd eS
fdlh ls ugha MjrkA dsl vnkyr es cgqr ls dsl pyrs gSaA vfHk;qDr us dgk fd ;fn
rqe fjiksVZ djksxh eSa rq>s tku ls ekj MkywaxkA /kedh lqu dj eS Hk;Hkhr gks x;h FkhA
2- ml le; eS dk;kZy; esa lqcg lk<s nl cts dk le; FkkA vr% eSa dsoy
mifLFkr FkhA xokg Jhefr vk'kk ckbZ] lquhrk ckbZ] vuhrk ckbZ vkfQl ds ckgj ekStwn
FkhA
3- eSa xksM vkfnoklh gwaA vkjksih vjfoan x<kjh oeZu tkfr dk gSaA mlds ckn
vfHk;qDr ogka ls pyk x;k FkkA
4- mlds ckn Hkh vfHk;qDr iSlk dh ekax djds eq>s /kedh nsrk FkkA eSaus iqfyl
Fkkuk 'kgiqjk x;hA mUgksaus fjiksVZ fy[khA eSus Fkkuk 'kgiqjk es fyf[kr fjiksVZ nh FkhA eSus
Qjojh ;k ekpZ esa Fkkuk esa fjiksVZ dh FkhA ekuo vf/kdkj vk;ksx ftyk fM.MkSjh dks izfr
Hksth Fkh tks izn'kZ ih&1 gS ftl ij v ls v esjs gLrk{kj gSA igys eSus fjiksVZ ugha dhA
ijUrq tc vfHk;qDr us nks pkj ckj iqu% /kedh nh rks eq>s yxk fd tku dks [krjk gSA
blfy, eSaus Fkkuk vkSj ekuon vf/kdkj vk;ksx dks fjiksVZ dhA
5- iqfyl us ekSdk uD'kk cuk;k FkkA izn'kZ ih&2 ij v ls v esjs gLrk{kj gSA eSus
rglhynkj ls tkfr izek.k i= izn'kZ ih&3 izkIr dj iqfyl dks is'k fd;k FkkA
6. Now question arises whether complainant (PW-1) is a reliable witness.
Perusal of written report (Ex.P/1) reveals that therein no date and time of
incident is mentioned. On the basis of written report (Ex.P/1), FIR (Ex.P/6)
has been registered and therein date of incident is mentioned as 18.02.2005
and time of incident is mentioned as 11:00 a.m. during the day. FIR (Ex.P/6)
has been registered on 22.02.2005. Thus, FIR is delayed by four days.
7. Complainant has admitted in para-6 of her cross-examination that she did
not immediately lodge the report. In para-4 of her examination-in-chief,
complainant has deposed that, firstly, she did not report the matter but when
accused threatened again and again, then, she felt that her life is in danger.
Thereafter, she lodged the report but in written report (Ex.P/1), it is not
mentioned that on what date/at what time and where appellant threatened
complainant on what date and time again and again. Further, in para-8,
complainant has admitted that thereafter also accused Arvind met her, but after
this incident, there was no dispute with accused. If above deposition of
complainant is correct then her statement in examination-in-chief is false that
appellant threatened her 2-4 times again and as mentioned in para-3 of written
report (Ex.P/1).
8. In written report (Ex.P/1), it is mentioned that incident occurred in the
presence of Asha Bai, Sunita, Anita etc. but, complainant has stated in para-2
of her examination-in-chief that at the time of incident, she alone was present
and witness Asha bai, Sunita and Anita were present outside the office.
9. Thus, from above, it is evident that there are material contradictions and
omissions in examination-in-chief, cross examination and written report
(Ex.P/1) of complainant. Further, FIR is also delayed. In this Court's opinion,
prosecution has failed to explain this delay satisfactorily.
10. With respect to reliability and credibility of complainant, appellant's
defence is also important. From cross-examination of prosecution witnesses
Anita, Sunita and Asha bai, it is evident that complainant used to take money
in connection with recruitment in the office etc. It is also evident from cross-
examination of Sunita, Mooratlal, Ravishankar Partay that a news was
published in the paper with respect to corruption by complainant in
recruitment.
11. From deposition of prosecution witness Ravi Shankar Partay and defence
witness Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gautam, it is evident, that later on, complainant
was transferred from the office on account of complaints being made against
her in relation to corruption in recruitment etc.
12. In the instance case, it is undisputed that appellant is a journalist and it is
also established from evidence on record that appellant has published news
against complainant in newspaper with respect to corruption by complainant.
13. Further, as per written report, Ex.P/1 and FIR Ex.P/6, present incident is
dated 18.02.2005. Perusal of Ex.D/2, complaint made by appellant to Incharge
Police station, Shahpura Dindori on 09.10.2004, reveals that appellant had
expressed his apprehension about being falsely implicated in some Scheduled
Tribes case by concerned Officers/employees and that in this connection,
enquiry is being conducted for taking excessive fees in Sahpura Centre,
Ex.D/2 is dated 09.10.2004. Ex.D/4 is letter/complaint written by appellant to
Collector, Dindori with respect to corruption being made by complainant etc.
Ex.D/4's letter has been received in Collector's officer on 29.11.2004. Ex.D/3
is enquiry report submitted by enquiry Officer to Collector with respect to
corruption of complainant etc. and above report is dated 15.02.2005.
14. Therefore, if documents filed by appellant in defence and depositions of defence
witnesses as well as cross-examination of prosecution witnesses are assessed and
examined cumulatively, keeping in mind the date of incident as well as dates
mentioned in (Ex.D./2), (Ex.D/3) and (Ex.D/4), then, whole incident appears to be
highly doubtful and suspicious. It is also so because a person, who has made
complaints against a person and whose enquiry has been initiated on the basis of
appellant's letter and report has already been submitted before the alleged incident
and appellant himself has expressed apprehension about being falsely implicated in
some Schedule Tribe case. In such, scenario, it is highly unnatural and improbable
that appellant would go to office of complainant during day time and ask for money
and for providing girl and on refusal by complainant, would abuse and threaten him.
15. In this Court's considered opinion, whole prosecution story appears to be wholly
unreliable and concocted one and defence taken by the appellant is probable one.
Further, in the instant case, there is no caste certificate issued by Competent
Authority.
16. In view of discussion in the foregoing paras, in this Court's opinion,
complainant is wholly unreliable witness and from evidence on record, charges
under Section 294, 506-B of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act are not
proved at all against appellant. Learned trial Court has not appreciated and examined
evidence on record in right prospective and has drawn wrong conclusion, against the
appellant.
17. In view of above, appeal filed by appellant is allowed and he is acquitted of
charges under Sections 294 and 506-B of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/St (PA)
Act.
18. Appeal filed by the appellant is disposed of accordingly.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
vai
