Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sarman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 February, 2024
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 28TH OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1756 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
1. SARMAN S.O SHRI LASMAN PRASAD,
KHARE, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R.O VILL.
UNCHA, P.S. SIMRIYA, DISTRICT PANNA,
M.P.
2. SANDEEP, SON OF SHRI SARMAN KHARE,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE UNCHA, P.S. SIMRIYA, DISTRICT
PANNA, M.P.
.....APPELLANTS
(NONE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION AJAK, (SC.ST) DISTRICT
HARDA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. SMITA KEHRI - PANEL LAWYER)
RESERVED ON : 01.02.2024
PRONOUNCED ON :
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgement, coming on
for pronouncement on this day, the court passed the following :-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 13-03-2024
22:09:02
JUDGMENT
Appellants have preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of
CR.PC. challenging the judgement of conviction and sentence dated 04.08.2008
passed by Special Judge, Atrocities, Panna in S.C.No.76/2007 whereby the
appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
APPELLANT CONVICTION SENTENCE FINE IN LIEU
OF FINE
323/34 IPC 1000/-
3 (1)(IV ) & (V) of 6 MONTHS RI 1000/- 1 MONTH
SARMAN
SC and ST Act, R.I.
SANDEEP 323/34 1000-/
3 (1)(IV ) & (V) of 6 MONTHS RI 1000/- 1 MONTH
SC and ST Act, R.I.
2. Prosecution story in brief is as follows: -
अभभयोजन का पक संभकप मे इस पकार है भक कमला बाई दारा रमेश कुमार से गाम छपरा (उंचा) की लगभग 03
है. भभू म रभजसटरर भवकयपत के माधयम से खरीदी गयी, भजस पर उसका नामानतरण भी हो चक
ु ा है। भवके ता रमेश खरे का
ु संदीप खर उसे जमीन नही जोतने देते है। घटना भदनांक 20. 09.04 को
छोटा भाई सरमन खरे एवं उसका लडका अभभयक
सबु ह लगभग 10.00 बजे वह छपरा वाले इस खेत मे चारा काट रही थी, उसका पभत मटटु पास के खेत मे हल जोत रहा
ु सरमन और संदीप आये, संदीप लाठी भलये था, सरमन बोला भक इस खेत का चारा कयो काट
था, इतने मे दोनो अभभयक
रही है तो फररयादी दारा यह कहा गया भक उसका खेत है, इस कारण वह चारा काट रही है, इस पर सरमन दारा अपने लडके
संदीप से यह कहा भक यही जमीन वाली बनी है, मार इसको भगा इस खेत से तब संदीप खरे दारा उसके दाभहने पोद मे लाठी
का दसू ा मार भदया, लाठी मे कील लगी थी, कील लगने से उसको खनू भनकलने लगा तब वह भचललायी तो उसका पभत
मटटु और बेनी अभहरवार आ गये, भजनके दारा बीच-बचाव भकया गया। अभभयक
ु ो दारा यह कहा गया भक आज तो बचा
भलया भफर इस खेतो मे कदम रखा या ररपोटर करने गयी तो वह कमला बाई और उसके पभत दोनो को जान से खतम कर देगे।
3. Learned counsel for the respondent State has submitted that the
prosecution has proved its case by leading cogent evidence and has proved guilt
of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and there are no grounds to interfere
with the same.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the record of the
case and have perused/examined record of the trial Court and grounds taken by
appellants/accused persons in the appeal memo minutely and carefully.
5. So far as conviction of the appellants under section 323/34 of the IPC is
concerned, complainant Kamla Bai (PW-4) has deposed in her examination-in-
chief as hereunder:-
01 मै हाजजर आदालत जारोपीगण को जानती हू.ँ मे कुमहार जाजत की है. जो अनसु जू चत जाजत की हू।ँ आरोपी खरे
जाजत के है, जो अनुजसतयत जाजत मे नी आते है, आज से 4 माह पहले की बात है। मैने रमेश बरे से छतरा हार मे मीन ली
थी। खरीदने के बाद मेरे नाम जमीन राजसव ररकारर मे जा गयी है। जमीन खरी के बाद मेरे नाम पर जा गयी थी , तो मै उत
जमीन पर चारा काटने के जलए गयी थी। मै चारा काट रही थी, मेरा आदमी हल जोत रहा तब आरोपीगण मौके पर पहु ५,
उस समय करीब 10 जदन के xx बडे जदन का सप था। आरोपीगण पहुचे बोले जक हमारा जमीन पर वारा मतं काटो तो मैने
कहा जक मेरी नाम पर जीमन है, मै उतरापारा काटेगे और जोतेगे। तब सनदीप खरे ने मेरे पीछे मे कमर मे लाठी मार दी थी।
सरमन ने भी मझु े मारा था और कहा जक ररपोटर कर दो। तब आरोपीग कह रहे है , जक तमु हे जान से खतम कर देगे। मेरे पजत
मौके पर जा कयने जजनहोनेबीच बचाव जकया था।
02+ जफर मे थाना जसमररया ररपोटर करने के जलये गयी थी। ररपोटर पर मैने अपणू र लगाया जा ररपोटर ५.पी-2 है। मेरी
राकटरी जांघ हुई थी। मौका पर पुजलत आयी थी, पजलु सन मरे े से नमा क
े मा क ौ ामक ौ े पर बन य ा ाशी ज पो .पी-3 है,
मैनजे रे ममीन मैने रमेश कुमार खरे से कुप की थी, उस जमीन की रजजसटी एवं बसरा वरर 2007-2008 की पजत दी थी, जज
मेरे नाम पर दजर है। जोजमीन मैने कृ य की, उनमीन पर मेरा कबजा है।
6. Perusal of deposition of Kamla Bai reveals that she has been extensively
cross-examined and nothing has come out in her cross-examination though she
is not a reliable witness. Further, Kamla Bai's testimony stands corroborated
from depositions of Beni and Maddu.
7. Perusal of FIR (Ex.P/2) reveals that it has been lodged after a delay of
two days but delay has been explained in the FIR itself. Kamla Bai's testimony
stands corroborated from the FIR (Ex.P/2), depositions of doctor Om Hari
Sharma and MLC (Ex.P/4) reveals that Om Hari Sharma has examined
complainant Kamla Bai and has found injury as mentioned in the MLC. This
medical evidence also corroborates the testimony of Kamla Bai.
8. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Kailash
Chandra Pandey, (2014) 12 SCC 29, has observed in para 13 that it is needless
to reiterate that appellate Court should be slow in re-appreciating the evidence.
This Court time and again has emphasized that the trial Court has the occasion
to see the demeanour of the witnesses and it is in a better position to appreciate
it, the appellate Court should not lightly brush aside the appreciation done by
the trial court except for cogent reasons.
9. Hence, in view of discussion in the foregoing paras and after going
through the evidence on record and having evaluated/appreciated the same, in
this Court's opinion, learned trial Court has appropriately appreciated the
overall evidence on record and has drawn correct conclusions and there is no
illegality or perversity in the findings of trial Court concerning
appellant/accused's conviction for above offences. Therefore, grounds taken by
the appellant in appeal memo with respect to conviction are not acceptable and
hence, rejected. Hence, learned trial Court's findings and judgement with
respect to appellant\accused person conviction for offence under Section 323/34
of IPC is hereby affirmed.
10. So far as conviction of appellants under Sections 3 (1) (iv) and 3 (1) (v)
of the SC/ST Act is concerned, prosecution has filed caste certificate (Ex.P/5),
which has been issued by Sarpanch (Ex.P/6) Kamal Rani. Thus, there is no caste
certificate issued by Competent Authority.
11. Further, prosecution has not filed any revenue documents to show that
Kamla Bai is owner and has been in possession of the property. No revenue
Officer has been examined to establish possession and ownership of
complainant Kamba Bai over the suit property. From deposition of (PW-1)
itself, complainant possession has not been proved on the land. Hence, in view
of above, it cannot be said that appellants had committed the offence under
Sections 3(1)(iv) and 3 (1) (v) of SC/ST Act.
12. In view of discussion in the forgoing paras, in this Court's considered
opinion, appellants cannot be convicted and sentenced under Sections 3 (1) (iv)
and 3 (1)(v) of the SC/ST Act as ingredients to constitute above offence are not
established in the case. Hence, appellants are acquitted for the offence
punishable under Section 3 (1) (iv) and 3 (1)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
13. The appellants are directed to deposit the aforesaid amount within three
months from today failing which they shall surrender before the trial Court to
undergo remaining sentence of imprisonment imposed by trial Court. Fine
amount, if any already deposited, shall be adjusted against the enhanced fine
amount.
14. After realization of fine of Rs.4,000/- be given to complainant/injured as
compensation.
15. It is made clear that period fixed for compliance of modified sentence as
above, would start running after accused is summoned by the trial court to serve
the sentence & from the date presence of accused is secured.
16. With the aforesaid observations, appeal filed by appellants is allowed to
the extent as indicated hereinabove.
17. Let record of the trial Court be sent for information and necessary
compliance.
18. Certified copy as per rules.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
sh
