Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhupendra Singh @ Mammaju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 May, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 22nd OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1858 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. BHUPENDRA SINGH @ MAMMAJU S/O HARPAL SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DERI POLICE CHOKI
DERI POLICE KUDILA DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DEENDAYAL KUSHWAHA S/O BALDU KUSHWAHA, AGED
ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DERI POLICE CHOKI DERI
POLICE KUDILA DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. ASHOK RAI S/O DASRATH RAI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE DERI POLICE CHOKI DERI POLICE KUDILA
DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ANOOP GOSWAMI S/O HARINARAYAN GOSWAMU, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DERI POLICE CHOKI DERI
POLICE KUDILA DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. BHAJJU @ RAMPRASAD DIMAR S/O KABALI DIMAR, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DERI POLICE CHOKI DERI
POLICE KUDILA DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SHASHANK UPADHYAY - ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION KUDILA DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
2
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SURDEEP KHAMPARIYA- PANEL LAWYER)
................................................................................................................
This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. The present Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. is
preferred by the petitioners against the judgment dated 12-04-2024 passed by
the Sessions Judge, Sessions Judge Tikamgarh (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal
No.170/2022 partly modifying the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 30-09-2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Tikamgarh, District Tikamgarh (M.P.) in Criminal Case No.2001398/2016
whereby petitioners are convicted as under:-
Sections Imprisonment Fine
147 of IPC 3 months' RI Rs.1,000/- with default
stipulation.
323 of IPC 3 months' RI Rs.1,000/- with default
stipulation
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on 18-06-2016 at about 07:00
pm when complainant Umesh Kumar Dixit (PW-1), who was posted as
Constable at Police Chowki Deri was discharging his duties, at that time
petitioners/accused Bhupendra @ Mammaju, Deendayal Kushwaha, Anoop
Goswami, Bhajju Dheemar and Ashok Rai R/o village Deri came there and
started abusing the complainant by saying that he harbours partial view for
some people of the village and when he raised objection, all of them started
assaulting him by kicks and fists. As a result of which, complainant sustained
various injuries on his head, stomach and hands. When he screamed, Head
Constable Balram and Constable Abdul Kadir who were sitting nearby, came
there and rescued the complainant. Assistant Sub Inspector Zaheer
Mohhammad came out of the police station and shouted at them. Thereafter,
accused persons fled away from the spot. On the basis of aforesaid incident,
FIR was registered against petitioners at Crime No.113/2016 for the offence
punishable under Sections 147, 332, 353, 294 and 506 of IPC on 18-06-2016.
On 19-06-2016 MLC of complainant Umesh Kumar Dixit (PW-1) was
conducted in which he was shown to have received various injuries on
shoulder, parietal area, elbow and knee. Investigation was set at motion and
after completion of necessary formalities including recording of statements,
Challan was filed and the case was committed to the trial Court for trial.
3. Before the trial Court petitioners abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.
Prosecution examined as many as 07 witnesses in support of its case and in
defence petitioners examined one witness namely Ashish Sahu who was an
eye-witness of the incident in order to establish the plea that
accused/petitioners had gone to the police station to lodge a complaint
against the complainant who used to illegally extort the money from the
vehicles in the village and petitioners have not committed any marpeet with
the complainant. The accused/petitioners have also been examined under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. After recording of evidence ocular as well as
documentary and hearing the submissions of counsel for the parties, the trial
Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners as referred above. The
Appellate Court partly modified the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence and found petitioners guilty of offence punishable under Section
147 and 323 of IPC and sentenced as referred above therefore, petitioners are
before this Court.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Courts
below have not appreciated the evidence in correct perspective. The judgments
suffer from surmises and conjecture. Statements of the prosecution witnesses
are not fully supportive to the case of the prosecution. All the witnesses are
interested witnesses and no independent witness was examined by the
prosecution. It is further submitted that petitioners have gone to the police
station for lodging a complaint against the complainant that he used to take
money from the vehicle running in the village illegally, but complainant
stopped them from meeting the Inspector of the police station who was
sitting inside the police station and to protect his hands from the said
allegation, complainant has fabricated the said story of marpeet. More so,
incident was not reported immediately and the medical was done on the next
day therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that complainant himself has
caused the injuries. Petitioners are innocent villagers and want to stop illegal
recovery from the villagers but they have been falsely implicated in the case
because complainant was a police personnel.
5. To establish their innocence, petitioners have examined one of the
villagers namely Ashish Sahu (DW-1) who lives in front of the police station.
The said witness has witnessed the whole incident and narrated accordingly.
From his statement, it is clearly reflected that petitioners have been
implicated in the case in order to save the complainant from his corrupt
practices. Besides, PW-3 Balram Ahirwar Head Constable has partly denied
the allegations against the petitioners. Further, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that petitioners being the first offender were entitled to the
benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 which learned Courts below failed
to do so. Alternatively, it is submitted that looking to the nature of offence,
conviction and jail sentence and in view of the provisions of Section 357 of
Cr.P.C. petitioners are ready to pay compensation/fine at higher side. Thus,
prayer for undergone has been made by reducing the jail sentence already
undergone by them by enhancing the fine amount as this Court deems fit.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
prayer and prayed for dismissal of petition. However, he fairly accepted that if
petitioners are ready to pay enhanced fine then only their case for undergone
may be considered.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. It is a case where petitioners are facing the allegation of assaulting the
complainant who is a police constable by kicks and fists due to which he
sustained several injuries on his shoulder, parietal area, elbow of left hand
and knee of left leg. The aforesaid assault over the complainant is fully
corroborated by medical evidence. As per the MLC report (Ex.P-4) prepared
by Dr. Veerndra Singh (PW-4), it is reflected that complainant sustained as
many as 05 injuries caused by hard and blunt object however the said injuries
are simple in nature. Prosecution witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 who are also
constable in the same police station have deposed against the petitioners
illustrating that petitioners with common intention reached the police station
and assaulted the complainant. Therefore, Courts below have not committed
any error while passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence against the petitioners. Prosecution succeeded in proving its case
beyond reasonable doubt.
9. The incident is of 2016 and in the whole case petitioners tried to establish
the theory that they were not the aggressor and not committed any marpeet with
the complainant for which they have examined one of the villagers also but the
fact remains that if petitioners were implicated falsely in the present case, then
why they have not preferred any private complaint before the competent Court
of jurisdiction in order to get the case registered against the complainant party.
All the witnesses deposed against the petitioners and the Courts below have
rightly did not take into consideration the story as tried to be projected by the
petitioners through their defence witness.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Prakashan Vs.
P.K.Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 and T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 held that if two views are possible and one view is
taken by the trial Court after due appreciation of evidence then unless sheer
perversity or illegality crept in to the judgment of trial Court, the scope of
interference is limited.
11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that during trial petitioners No. 1 to 3 remained in custody for 05
days whereas petitioners No. 4 & 5 remained in custody for 02 days and after
passing of judgment of conviction and order of sentence by the appellate
Court, petitioners are in jail and suffered more than 01 month and 10 days
incarceration whereas punishment provided by the Trial Court is of three
months and further they have already suffered 8 years' long ordeal of trial,
therefore, case of petitioners be considered for the sentence already
undergone by them for which they are ready to pay fine amount at higher
side. That will suitably compensate the complainant.
12. Resultantly, this criminal revision preferred by the petitioners stands
disposed of while maintaining the conviction recorded by the Courts below and
their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners but
in view of Section 357 of Cr.P.C., fine of Rs.1,000/- which has been imposed by
the trial Court deserves to be enhanced and it is directed that petitioners shall
pay fine/compensation amount of Rs.2,000/- (each petitioner for each
offence). In other words, every accused now shall have to pay Rs.2,000/- as fine
for offence under Section 147 of IPC and Rs.2,000/- for offence under Section
323 of IPC. Total amount for five accused comes to Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty
Thousands only) in which already paid fine amount shall be deducted. Rest of
the amount shall have to be paid within two months for which petitioners shall
give undertaking before the trial Court that in case of non-deposit of amount as
directed by this Court, they shall have to serve the remaining part of jail
sentence. The aforesaid amount of compensation shall be paid to the
complainant after due verification of his identity.
13. With the aforesaid direction, the criminal revision stands disposed of.
14. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and
necessary compliance.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
vc
ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
2024.06.01
17:54:09
+05'30'
