Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Chouhan 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 OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2199 of 2006
(AJJU @ AJAY VS. STATE OF M.P.)
&
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2062 of 2006
(MAHENDRA CHOUHAN VS. STATE OF MP.)
BETWEEN:-
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2062/2006
MAHENDRA CHOUHAN SON OF
DHARAMSINGH CHOUHAN, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, R.O. WARD NO.15,
NAINPUR, P.S. NAINPUR, DISTRICT
MANDLA M.P.
.....APPELLANT/ACCUSED PERSON
(BY SHRI VINEET MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH POLICE STATION
NAINPUR, DISTRICT MANDLA.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT /STATE
.....................................................................................................................................
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2199/2006
BETWEEN
AJJU @ AJAY SON OF SEWAK RAM
RAIKWAR, AGED ABOUT RESIDENT
OF WARD NO.1, NAINPUR, P.S.
NAINPUR, DISTRICT MANDLA, M.P.
....APPELLANT/ACCUSED PERSON
(MRS.SMITA VERMA- ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS)
AND
THE STATE OF M P THROUGH P.S.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 13-03-2024
22:09:02
NANIPUR, DISTRICT MANDLA M.P.
..................RESPONDENT /STATE
RESERVED ON : 31.01.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.02.2024
..........................................................................................
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgement, coming on for
pronouncement on this day, the court passed the following
JUDGMENT
This order shall govern the disposal of Cr.A.No.2062/2006 (Mahendra
Chouhan Vs. State) & Cr.A.No.2199/2066 (Ajju @ Ajay Vs. State) as they have
arisen out of common judgement i.e. 13.10.2006.
2. These criminal appeals have been filed by the appellants under Section 374
(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the common judgement dated 13.10.2006 passed by
Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mandla in S.C.No.02/2006, whereby appellant
Mahendra Chouhan has been convicted under Section 294 and 332 of the IPC and
has been sentenced and under Section 332/34 of IPC with RI for 6 months and
appellant Ajju @ Ajay has been convicted under Section 294, 332/34 IPC and has
been sentenced under section 332/34 of IPC with RI for 6 months and under
Section 3 (1)(X) of the SC/ST Act with RI for six months with fine of Rs.500/-
with default stipulation.
3. Prosecution story in brief is as follows:-
2- vfHk;kstu dgkuh lkjka'k ;g gS fd izkFkhZ lgk;d mi&fujh{kd f'kopj.k rsdke ?kVuk
fnukad dks 15-12-05 dks Fkkuk uSuiqj esa lgk;d mifujh{kd ds in ij yksdlsod ds ukrs viuh
M;wVh ij FkkA ml fnu nynyh esyk esa og viuh M;wVh dj jgk FkkA mlh le; izkFkhZ dks
ok;jysal ls ;g lwpuk izkIr gqbZ fd Hkhe jSdokj vius lkfFk;ksa ds lkFk esyk esa voS/k olwyh dj jgs
gSaA mUgsa idM+dj Fkkus ykuk gSA vr% izkFkhZ f'kopj.k rsdke us esyk esa drZO; ij mifLFkr iqfyl
vkj{kd ,oa lSfuddks ds lkFk feydj vkjksihx.k dh [kkst dhA twrk&pIiyksa dh nqdku ds ikl
vkjksihx.k feysA izkFkhZ us vkjksihx.k ls dgk fd vki yksx voS/k olwyh vkSj xq.MkxnhZ D;ksa dj jgs
gksA rks vkjksihx.k us dgk fd eknjpksn rsdku rsjh eka dh pksnw] rw cksyus okyk dkSu gksrk gSA ;g
dgdj gkFk&eqDdk ls ekjihV dj izkFkhZ dks pksV igqapkbZA mldk tkfrxr vieku fd;kA fn0 15-
12-05 dks 'kke 19-15 cts Fkkuk uSuiqj esa izkFkhZ us izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djk;hA vi0Øekad
259@05 iathc) fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dk MkDVjh eqykfgtk djk;k x;kA vuqla/kku iw.kZ dj vfHk;ksx
i= lh-ts-,e- e.Myk ds U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;k] tks dfeV gksus ds mijkUr bl U;k;ky; dks
izkIr gqvkA**
4. Learned counsel for the appellant Mahendra Chouhan submits that
conviction and sentence of appellants is bad in law, incorrect and improper and
against the evidence on record. Learned trial Court has wrongly relied upon
depositions of prosecution witnesses whereas they are full of contradictions and
omissions and there are material improvements and trial has erred in convicting
appellant under Section 3(1)(X) of the SC ST Act and under Section 294 and
332 of IPC. There is no proper investigation of the case. Trial Court has failed
to notice that prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt
against appellants. Findings of trial Court are based on conjectures and
surmises, therefore, appeal filed by the appellant be allowed.
5. 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.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties 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.
7. So far as conviction of the appellants under Section 3 (1) (X) of the
SC/ST Act is concerned, perusal of record of the case reveals that prosecution
has not produced any caste certificate issued by any Competent Authority and
trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant Ajju under section 3(1)(X)
of the SC ST Act only on the basis of oral deposition as well as admissions
made in examination under Section 313 CRPC. In this Court's considered
opinion, in the absence of any caste certificate issued by competent authority,
appellant Ajju cannot be convicted and sentenced under section 3(1)(x) of the
SC/ST Act. Hence, appellant Ajju is acquitted of charge under Section 3(1)(x) of
the SC/ST Act.
8. So far as conviction of appellants under Section 294 and 332 of the IPC is
concerned, complainant/injured/prosecution witness Shiv Charan Tekam (PW-5)
has deposed in his examination in chief as under:-
" 1- दद न ा15.
ं क 12. 2005 हो थाना नैनपरु सहाय उपदनरीका है पद पर पदसथ था । मै गोड जादत का हू।ं
आरोपी महेनद मेहतर जादत का है। आरोपी भीम और अजजू टीमर जादत के है।
2- उस ददन मेरी दडयटू ी काननू वयवसथाले दलए पतथली लामे थी। मेरे साथ दधु ान आरकक 457, २६०,400,
रक क 267, मणडलाले चार सैदनक भी मैला दडयटू ी मै थे। बाद मे आरक चैन दसंह भी गया। सैदनल कुषणकुमार भी
आअरया । सबरो दडयूटी दवतररत कर दी गयी थी। सभी अपने अपने दडयटू ी गरौ। मेरे साथ आरकक चैन दसंह और सैदनक
दषण दमू रर थे। उसी समय वायरलेस सेट से थानासे सचू ना पाप हुयी दक भीम रै कवार अपने सादथयो दे साथ दक
ु ानदारो से
ू ी। हर रहाहै, इसको परडो। मैलागे हम लोगो ने खोज की। जतू ाचपपल दरु ानी माइन तरप, आ र ो प ,ी भ ी म
अवैध वसल
ज र ो प,ी और े न दअजजू दमले। मैने आरोपी गौम से वहा ररचयो वसल
म हआरोपी ू ी कर रहे हो। तो भीम ने वयादध मेरी साली चतू
गोडवा टेकाम वह गेरी वालर पणड पर मझु े झमू गया और हाथ मकु दा से मारने लगा। सनु ने मे बरु ालगा । पहा पटु की मे आरक
च न ै दस ,हं सैदनक कुषण समार, डायबर दवनय, उमरे नद पटेल, दीनू दसंधी ने बीव बयान ददया। आरोपी अजजू औरमहेनद
आरोपीभीम से बह रहे है दक मारो साले गोडवा को उसके बाद वे लोग वहां से भाग गये । 3- उसक े ब द ाधन ना ानपै र ु मन ै े
घनाही ररपोटर की थे। ररपोटर पदररमी. 7 पर 3 से 3 मेरे हसताद है। मझु े सीने मे चोट थी। असपताल मेरा डाकटरी मल
ु ाहा हुआ
था । घटना सथानणरा हवाया गया था। पदरर 6 पर से ब मेरे हसताइरहे । नैनपरु असपताल मे मेरा ईलाज हुआ था। मैने थाने मे
अपना जादत। पमु ाण पत पेर दकया था। आरोपी गणले कृ तय से मेरे रासकीय वायर मे बाधा उतपनन हुयी। इसदलए मै ततकाल
थाने से आकर ररपोटर वी -।
9. Perusal of depositions of prosecution witnesses Chain Singh, Shiv Charan
Tekam, Krishna Kumar and Amarendra Patel etc. reveals that from evidence of
prosecution witnesses as well as FIR Ex.P/7, presence of appellants as well as
Shiv Charan Tekam/Chain Singh etc. and quarrel have been taken place
between Shiv Charan Tekam and appellants, is clearly established.
10. With respect to offence under Section 332 and 294 of IPC, prosecution
witness Shiv Charan Tekam depositions stand corroborated in material
particulars by depositions of Chain Singh etc. and FIR Ex.P/7.
11. But perusal of case file reveals that prosecution has not filed any duty
certificate of Shiv Charan Tekam to show that at the time of incident,
complainant Shiv Charan Tekam was performing his duties as public servant.
Further, no Rojnamcha Sanha relating to departure and arrival of Shiv Charan
Tekam from concerned Thana has been filed. Prosecution has not furnished any
explanation whatsoever with respect to non-production of above material
documents.
12. Hence, in view of absence of material documents, with respect to duty
certificate etc. of Shiv Charan Tekam at the time of incident, appellants cannot
be convicted and sentenced under Section 332/34 IPC but as offence under
Section 323/34 of IPC is lesser then that of u/S 332/34 of IPC. Therefore,
appellants can be convicted and sentenced under Section 323/34 of IPC.
Though, no specific charge under Section 323 of IPC has been framed against
appellants.
13. 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 rea-ppreciating 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.
14. Hence, in view of discussion in the forgoing paras, appellants are
acquitted of the charge under Section 332/34 of IPC but they are convicted
under Section 323/34 and 294 of IPC.
15. So far as sentence is concerned, appellants stand convicted under
Sections 323/34 and 294 of IPC. Appellant Ajay @ Ajju has remained in
custody from 17.12.2005 to 06.03.2006 and Mahendra Chouhan from
17.12.2005 to 27.12.2005 and 15.09.2006 to 25.09.2006. Present incident is
dated 15.12.2005. As per medical report, no external injuries have been found
on the person of complainant. There are no criminal antecedents of the
appellants. Hence, ends of justice would be served, if the appellants are
sentenced with period already undergone and with fine.
16. Hence, in view of above and considering overall facts and circumstances
of the case, appellants are sentenced under Sections 323/34 and 294 of the IPC
with the period already undergone by them in custody and with fine of Rs.500/-
to each appellants for each offence and in default, 15 days simple imprisonment
for each offence.
17. 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 by 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 running after accused is summoned by the trial Court to
serve the sentence and from the date, when accused persons' presence is
secured.
19. Appeals filed by the appellants are partly allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove. Present appeals are disposed off accordingly.
20. Let record of the trial Court be sent for information and necessary
compliance.
21. Certified copy as per rules.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
sh
