Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rup Singh 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 J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1774 of 2007
BETWEEN:-
1. RUP SINGH, SON OF SHRI KISHANLAL JAT,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R.O DAGWANIMA,
POLICE STATION TIMERNI, DISTRICT
HARDA, M.P.
2. RAKESH SON OF SHRI CHHITAR JAT, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDNET OF
DAGWANIMA, POLICE STATION TIMERNI,
DISTRICT HARDA, M.P.
.....APPELLANTS
(NONE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION AJAK, (SC.ST) DISTRICT
HARDA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. EKTA GUPTA - PANEL LAWYER)
RESERVED ON : 31.01.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.2.2024
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
2
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 (2)
of the Cr.P.C. against the judgement dated 16.08.2007 passed by Special Judge,
ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Harda in S.C. No.10/2007, whereby the
appellants have been convicted and sentenced with default stipulation as under:-
APPELLANT CONVICTION SENTENCE
RUP SINGH 341 IPC Fine of 500/-
506-B IPC Fine of Rs.1000/-
325/34 of IPC RI for 6 months and fine
of Rs.1000/-
RAKESH 341 IPC Fine of 500/-
506-B IPC Fine of Rs.1000/-
325/34 of IPC RI for 6 months and fine
of Rs.1000/-
2. Prosecution story in brief is as follows: -
^^¼3½ vfHk;kstu ds vuqlkj ?kVuk bl izdkj gS fd vkgr lqUnjyky ¼vfHk0lk0&8½ cybZ tkfr
dk gksdj vuqlwfpr tkfr dk lnL; gS] og fnukad 20&8&04 dks fVejuh ls vius ?kj xzke
Mxkokuhek tk jgk Fkk] lkFk esa Jhdkar ¼vfHk0lk0&1½] n'kjFk ¼vfHk0lk0&4½ Hkh Fks] tc os yksx
'kke 5-30 cts uCcw ds [ksr ds ikl igqaps rks vkjksihx.k] jkds'k] :iflag rFkk lquhy jkM ,oa
ykBh ysdj vk;s] mls v'yhy xkfy;ka nh rFkk jkM ,oa ykBh ls ekjihB dh] ftlls mlds nksuksa
gkFkksa] o iSjks esa pksVs vkbZ] fQj vkjksihx.kksa us tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nhA vkgr lqUnjyky ogh
fxj iM+k] fQj mls gjnk gkWfLiVy yk;s] tgka ij Jhdkar us nsgkrh ukYlh ¼iz-ih-&1½ fjiksVZ
fy[kkbZA vijk/k fVejuh {ks= dk gksus ls iz-ih&11 dh fjiksVZ ntZ dh] ijUrq /kkjk&3 ¼1½ ¼10½
vuq0tk0vuq0tutk0 ¼vR;k0fuok0½ vf/kfu;e varxZr vijk/k gksus ls vtkd Fkkuk gjnk esa iz-
ih&12 dk vijk/k iathc) fd;k x;kA**
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 325 of the IPC is
concerned, injured/complainant Sunderlal (PW-8) has deposed in his
examination-in-chief as hereunder :-
^^1- eS gkftj vnkyr vfHk0x.k dks tkurk gwaA eSa dfr;k vuq0 tkfr esa vkrk gwaA eSaus iz-ih-
10 dk izek.k i= tkfr ds laca/k esa izLrqr fd;k gSA
2- eSa gjnk ls cktkj djds Mxkek uhek tk jgk Fkk] eSa pkj[ksM+k gksrs gq, vius xkao tk jgk
Fkk] esjs lkFk esa Mxkok dk jkepaNz vkSj Jhdkar n'kjFk ;s yksx Hkh FksA ge yksx iSnky tk pkj[ksMk
ls tk jgs FksA esjs vkxs jkepanz Jhdkar vkSj n'kjFk py jgs Fks] eSa mlls yxk gqvk ihNs py jgk
Fkk] ml le; 5-30 cts gksxsA eSa ueZnk izlkn jktiwr ds [ksr ds ikl igqapk] ogka iqfy;k cuh gqbZ
FkhA iqfyl ij :iflax lquhy vkSj jkds'k cSBs gq, Fks] lquhy vkSj jkds'k ds gkFk esa jkM FkhA
vkSj :iflax ds gkFk esa ykBh FkhA eSa tSls gh ikl esa bu ds ikl igqapk] vfHk0x.k eq>s xkyh nsus
yxs eknj pkSn cfy;k eka pksn nsxs tku ls [kre dj nsaxsA vkSj mlds ckn rhuks us feydj ekjk
ykBh vkSj jkM ls ekjkA eq>s tc ekjk rks esjs lkFk okys ogka ls Hkkx fy,A esjs dks ekjus ij esjs
nksuksa ij pksVs yxj lk{kh us gkFk crk;k ftlesa mlds gkFkksa esa vkijs'ku ds fu'kku fn[k jgs gSA
nksuksa iSjksa esa Hkh pksVsa vkbZ gSA lh/ks iSj esa QsDpj gqvk Fkk esjs gkFk ds vkijs'ku gqvk FkkA jkM Myh
gSA
3- eSa esjs dh pksV vkus ij fpYyk;k ij ogka ij dksbZ ugha vk;k eSa fQj fxj x;k FkkA ekjus
ihVdj vfHk0x.k ogka ls Hkkx x,A gkFk iSj esa ls [kwu fudyk Fkk] mlds ckn csgks'k gks x;k FkkA
fQj eq>s xkao okys mBkdj ys x;s FksA
4- vfHk0x.k us pquko ekgkSy dh jaft'k dh otg ls ekjk gks ldrk gSA pksVksa dk bykt
gehfn;k vLirky Hkksiky esa pyk FkkA lk{kh us Lor% dgk fd esjs bykt esa 1 yk[k :i;k [kpZ gks
x;k gSA**
6. Perusal of deposition of Sunderlal reveals that he has been extensively
cross-examined on behalf of appellants /accused persons but nothing has come
out in his cross-examination to show that he is unreliable witness. Further,
perusal of Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/1 reveals that it has been lodged immediately
after the incident and therein name of appellants are clearly mentioned. Thus,
FIR Ex.P/11 lodged by Shrikant also corroborates the prosecution story.
7. Further, deposition of prosecution witness Shrikant also corroborates
deposition of Sunderlal.
8. It is correct that prosecution witnesses Ramchandra, Sharda Bai, Dashrath
Narmada Prasad and Mahesh are not eye witnesses.
9. Perusal of deposition of Dr. B.K. Khandelwal and MLC (Ex.P/7) and X
ray Ex.P/8 and ExP/9 reveals that he has examined injured Sunderlal on the date
of incident itself and found various injuries on the person of injured as
mentioned in the MLC and also found fracture in radius ulna bone. Thus,
medical evidence also corroborates the testimony of Sunderlal.
10. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal V.
Kailash Chandra Pandey (2014) 12 SCC has observed in para 13 that it is
needless to reiterate that appellate Court should be slow in 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.
11. Hence, in view of discussion in the forgoing paras and after going
through the evidence on record and having evaluated and appreciated the same,
in this Court's considered opinion, learned trial Court has approximately
appreciated the overall evidence on record and has drawn correct conclusions
and there is no illegality or perversity in the findings of the trial Court
concerning appellants/accused persons conviction for above offence/offences.
Therefore, grounds taken by the appellants in appeal memo with respect to
conviction are not acceptable and hence, rejected. Hence, learned trial Court's
findings and judgment with respect to appellants/accused persons conviction for
aforesaid offence/offences are affirmed.
12. So far as conviction of appellants under Section 506-B of the IPC is
concerned, perusal of para 2 of deposition of Sunder Lal reveals that it was a
verbal threat and it was not intended to be carried out. Further, Sunder Lal has
not deposed that he got threatened on account of threat given by appellants.
Hence, in view of above, in this Court's opinion, ingredients constituting
offence under Section 506-B of the IPC are not made out in the instant case.
13. So far as appellants conviction under Section 341 of IPC is concerned,
perusal of FIR as well as deposition of Sunderlal reveals that therein it is
nowhere mentioned that appellants restrained complainant Sunderlal from
proceeding in any direction in which complainant has right to proceed. Instead,
in deposition of complainant Sunderlal as well as in FIR, it is mentioned that as
soon as complainant reached near accused persons, they started beating him. In
view of above, it cannot be said that offence under section 341 of ICP is made
out.
14. Hence, in view of discussion in the forgoing paras, prosecution has failed
to prove ingredients necessary to constitute offence under Section 506-B and
341 of IPC. Therefore, appellants are acquitted of the offence under Section 341
& 506 -B of IPC.
15. So far as sentence is concerned, trial Court has sentenced the appellant
Rup Singh and Rakesh under Section 325/34 of the IPC with RI for six months
and with fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation. Present case relates to
incident dated 02.08.2004. There are no criminal antecedents of the appellants.
Complainant has sustained fracture in the hand. Appellants have remained in
custody from 27.09.2004 to 04.10.2004. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, ends of justice would be served, if the appellants are sentenced with the period
already undergone and with fine.
16. Hence, in view of above and considering the overall facts and circumstances of
the case, appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed and appellants are sentenced
under section 325/34 of the IPC with the period already undergone by them and with
fine of Rs.5,000- each and in default of fine, three months RI.
17. The appellants are directed to deposit the aforesaid fine amount within three
months from today failing which they shall surrender before the trial Court to undergo
remaining sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court. Fine amount, if any,
already deposited, shall be adjusted against the enhanced fine amount.
18. It is made clear that period fixed for compliance of modified sentence as above,
would start after accused is summoned by the trial Court to serve the sentence and
from the date when presence of accused persons is secured.
19. In view of discussion in the forgoing paras, appeal filed by the appellants is
partly allowed to the extent as indicated hereinabove.
20. Present appeal is disposed off accordingly.
21. Let record of the trial Court be sent for information and necessary compliance.
22. Certified copy as per rules.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
sh
