Madhya Pradesh High Court
Veer Singh Baghel @ Pappan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 15 th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 28 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
VEER SINGH BAGHEL @ PAPPAN, AGE ABOUT 22
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE
CHHINWARA, POLICE STATION DEVGARH, DISRICT
MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI H.K. SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION DEVAGARH DISTRICT MORENA
2. VRINDAWAN BAGHEL S/O RAMSWAROOP
BAGHEL, AGE ABOUT 26 YEARS,
3. RAVINDRA @ RAVI BAGHEL S/O BHOOP SINGH
BAGHEL, AGE ABOUT 22 YEARS,
4. RAGHUNATH BAGHEL S/O RAJARAM BAGHEL,
AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS,
5.
KOK SINGH BAGHEL S/O RAGHUNATH
BAGHEL, AGE ABOUT 25 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O VILLAGE - CHHINWARA,
POLICE STATION DEVGARH, DISTRICT
MORENA
6. JARDAN SINGH S/O RAJARAM BAGHEL, AGE 59
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 5/20/2024
10:32:53 AM
2
YEARS
7. KALLARAM @ VIDHYARAM S/O JARDAN SINGH,
AGE 28 YEARS
8. RANCHOD BAGHEL S/O RAMSWAROOP BAGHEL,
AGE ABOUT 27 YEARS
9. MUNESH BAGHEL S/O RAGHUNATH BAGHEL,
AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O VILLAGE CHHINWARA, POLICE
STATION DEVGARH, DISTRICT MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH) (PROFORMA RESPONDENT
NO.6 TO 9 AS THEY ARE ALREADY CONVICTED BY
THE TRIAL COURT IMPOSING THE LIFE
IMPRISONMENT)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SMT. ANJALI GYANANI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Vivek Rusia
passed the following:
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal under section 372 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
by the appellant/complainant against the acquittal of the respondents No.2 to
5 from the charges under sections 294, 506, 302/34, 325/34, 323/34 of IPC by
the judgment dated 20.11.2023 passed by Second Additional Sessions
Judge, Jaura, District Morena in S.T. No. 181/2020.
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Veer Singh Baghel alongwith
his uncle Vidyaram, Balister Baghel in injured condition orally reported at police
station that on 04/07/2020, at around 6:00 pm, he and his uncle Vidyaram were
sitting in front of the house of Balister. At that juncture, Ranchor came and told
Balister that he was beaten by in-laws, on which, Balister replied what he has to
do? Then Ranchor, Jardan Singh, Kalla, Munesh armed with sticks came and
started abusing Balister. When he objected, Ranchor assaulted Balister with
stick on his head, Jardan assaulted Balister with stick on the back of his head,
Kalla assaulted Balister with stick on the left side of his cheek. When Vidyaram
tried to save Balister, then Munesh assaulted Vidyaram with stick on his head
due to which blood started oozing out. Then complainant and Sughar Singh
intervened in the matter. They also witnessed the incident. While leaving, all four
were threatening to kill them, if the matter is reported to the Police Station. On
the basis of such information, the FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered at Police Station
Devgarh at crime No.74/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 294,
323,506, 34 of IPC. During treatment, on 05.07.2020, Balister died in the
hospital.
3. Upon completion of investigation including recording of statements,
collection of evidence and necessary formalities, challan was filed. The
Sessions Court after appreciation of evidence placed on record acquitted the
respondents No. 2 to 5 from the aforementioned charges and convicted the
respondents No.6 to 9 for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and
325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of
Rs.5,000 and R.I for 3 years with fine of Rs.3,000/- respectively with default
stipulations, vide impugned judgment.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that
acquittal of respondents No.2 to 5 from the charge of Section 302 IPC is not
based on cogent grounds. It is submitted that without assigning any cogent
reason, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondents No.2 to 5. It is further
submitted that Trial Court has disbelieved the statements of the witnesses in
respect of the respondents No.2 to 5 while relied upon the statements of same
witnesses in respect of respondents No.6 to 9 for convicting them. It is
submitted that merely because of registration of cross case, it cannot be
assumed that the witnesses are not reliable. The trial Court has wrongly come to
the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges framed
against respondents No.2 to 5 beyond reasonable doubt while there was ample
evidence produced by the prosecution to establish the fact that all the accused
persons with common intention have participated in commission of offence.
Therefore, the impugned judgment of Trial Court upto the extent of acquittal of
respondents No.2 to 5 is bad in law and deserves to be set-aside.
5. As regards the appeal against acquittal, the law is settled that there is
limited scope for considering an appeal against acquittal. T he Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544 in
para 42 has laid down as under :-
"42.Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the
promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the
safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are
intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which
come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could
be summarised as:
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal
trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive --
inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in
a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two
views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall
ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible view,
me r e possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the
reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in
appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically
address all the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and
must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the
appellate court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or
error of law or fact in the decision of the trial court."
6. In the light of the law laid down as aforesaid, it is to be examined whether
the order of acquittal of learned Trial Court is not based on cogent grounds and
whether the respondents No.2 to 5/accused persons are liable to be convicted
for the aforesaid offence.
7. As per the FIR (Exhibit P-1) which has been lodged by Veer Singh
Baghel (PW-2), the names of the acquitted accused persons (respondents No.2
to 5) are missing in the FIR. Even the police statements which were taken on the
same day do not contain the names of respondents No.2 to 5, only names of
convicted accused persons (respondents No.6 to 9) have been mentioned
therein.
8. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant/complainant
that FIR is not an encyclopedia of the incident and that the investigating officer
was having hand in glove with the accused persons and has concocted the FIR
by not impeading the co-accused/respondents No.2 to 5 who have participated
in the crime, is concerned, the perusal of record shows that the FIR (Exhibit P-
1) is signed by complainant-Veer Singh Baghel who is appellant before this
Court and after 5 to 10 days, the application (Exhibit P-3) was submitted
before the S.P. Morena, which though bears the date as '09.07.2020' but no
receipt of the S.P. Office is affixed on it showing that this application has been
submitted before the S.P. on 09.07.2020. This application is having a remark of
Reader on front page dated 14.07.2020. Therefore, it appears that after 10 days,
this application has been filed before the S.P. Morena, which was filed by
Sughar Singh Baghel, not by complainant Veer Singh Baghel who has lodged
the FIR. Through in application (Ex. P-3) it is complained that the names of
other four accused persons, namely, Vrindavan, Ravindra, Raghunath and Kok
Singh have been left in the FIR. Thereafter, police again recorded the statements
of witnesses Veer Singh, Sughar Singh and Vidyaram on 24.07.2020 and Kok
Singh on 25.07.2020, in which they have stated the names of aforesaid acquitted
four accused persons respondents No.2 to 5 by stating that after hearing the
noise of quarrel, these four acquitted accused persons also came armed with
lathi and committed marpeet with Balister and Vidyaram. The police statements
of Veer Singh as well as Sughar Singh, which were taken on the date of FIR/on
the next date, do not contain the fact that respondents No.2 to 5 have come
with lathi after hearing the noise of quarrel and committed marpeet with
Vidyaram and Balister. This allegation reveals in second statements of these
witnesses took after almost 20 days of the incident.
9. Perusal of record prima-facie shows that the FIR and the police
statements do not contain the names of respondents No.2 to 5 and forthwith no
objection has been taken in this behalf by the complainant Veer Singh, who
lodged the FIR, against the scriber of the FIR that he in connivance with the
accused persons has not registered the FIR against respondents No.2 to 5.
Such complaint has been filed after a delay of 10 days and that too by Sughar
Singh Baghel not by Veer Singh Baghel. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly
concluded and acquitted respondents No.2 to 5 assuming this complaint dated
09.07.2020 and police statement taken thereafter to be with a malafide intention.
10. It has also rightly been observed by the learned Trial Court that the
medical evidence is not supportive to the evidence of complainant as it is not
corroborative in nature so far as the allegation of committing marpeet by
acquitted accused persons, namely, Vrindawan, Ravindra, Ragunath, Kok
Singh is concerned.
11. Police during the investigation has seized sticks (lathis ) from the
possession of these four acquitted accused persons but the seizure memo
Exhibit P-28, 29, 30 and 31 do not contain that any blood stains were found on
such sticks (lathis) and no FSL report was filed during the trial in respect of
these seized sticks. Therefore, such seizure also does not support the case of
prosecution or complainant against the respondents No.2 to 5.
12. Veer Singh Baghel (PW-2) in Para 13 of his cross examination
admitted that it is not true that firstly four persons have come and caused
marpeet with Balister and Vidyaram and thereafter hearing noise of quarrel,
remaining accused Ragunath, Kok Singh, Ravi and Vrindawan have reached the
spot, he has not dictated such thing in his statement (Exhibit D-1). Similar
admission has also been made by Vidyaram (PW-1) in para 6, Sughar Singh
(PW-3) in his cross examination in Para 9 and by Kok Singh (PW-4) in Para 3.
Therefore, on the aspect of committing marpeet by the aforesaid acquitted four
accused persons, there are material omissions in the FIR as well as the police
statements recorded immediately after the incident and there are material
variations in this regard in the statements of eye witnesses, as discussed above,
which renders the case of prosecution doubtful against these acquitted accused
persons.
13. The perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the Trial Court after a
thorough scrutiny of the facts of the case and on proper appreciation of
evidence on record has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge
against the accused/respondents No.2 to 5. The findings recorded by the
learned Trial Judge with regard to acquittal of respondents No.2 to 5 in the
impugned judgment are based upon cogent reasons.
14. In view of above, no interference is warranted in the judgment of acquittal
recorded by the Trial Court.
15. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Aman
