Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Prasad Namdeo vs Arvind Alias Munna Namdeo on 2 April, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7638
1 CRA-109-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 2 nd OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 109 of 2007
JAGDISH PRASAD NAMDEO
Versus
ARVIND ALIAS MUNNA NAMDEO AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gagan Sharma and Shri S. K. Tiwari, Advocates for appellant.
None for respondents.
ORDER
Matter is heard finally.
Appellant has preferred this appeal after obtaining leave from this
Court under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. against judgment of acquittal dated
25.8.2005 in criminal case No.256/2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Guna, M.P. by which respondents have been acquitted from the
charges under Section 323, 451 of IPC.
Vide order dated 24.1.2007 passed in MCRC No.5741/2005, this
Court has granted leave to appeal only under Section 451 of IPC.
As per prosecution story, on 16.3.2004 at about 10:30 PM when
appellant went to lane which is situated by side of his house for peeing and
saw a women sitting there. On seeing her, he returned back to his home and
when he was returning back, respondents caught hold him and abused in a
filthy language and threatened him for life. They slapped the appellant 3-4
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7638
2 CRA-109-2007
times and called their sons Vicky, Rajakumar and Govind who came there
with lathis and they struck lathis on his door when he entered into the house.
He was also beaten by legs and fist by entering into his house. After hearing
his hue and cry, Ajay Kumar, Vijay, Bharosa and Vivash Jain came there.
Appellant tried to lodge an FIR in the police Station Guna but correct report
was not written by the Police. Thereafter, appellant filed a private complaint
before learned trial Court. Learned trial Court after recording statement of
appellant and other witness under Section 200, 202 of Cr.P.C. registered case
under Section 451 and 323 of IPC against respondents and framed charges
under Section 451, 323 of IPC against them but after recording evidence trial
Court has acquitted respondents/accused persons from all the charges. Being
aggrieved by aforesaid, appellant has preferred this appeal.
Learned counsel for appellant contended that trial Court has not
properly appreciated the evidence available on record which proves all the
ingredients of Section 451 of IPC against respondents. Therefore, trial Court
was not justified in acquitting the respondents from aforesaid charges. In the
absence of medical examination of victim, trial Court should rely upon other
evidence available on record. The findings given by the trial Court being
perverse deserves to be set aside and respondents be convicted for the
offence under Section 451 of IPC.
Despite service of notice, nobody has appeared on behalf of
respondents at the time of final argument.
Heard counsel for appellant and perused the entire record with due
care.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7638
3 CRA-109-2007
Before trial Court, complainant Jagdish Prasad deposed that on
16.3.2004 at about 10:30 PM, when he went to the lane for peeing, then he
saw that respondent Mamta Bai was peeing there and on seeing her he
returned back to his home. At that time, the husband of Mamta Bai, Arvind
came there and slapped him. When he said that he does not know if anybody
was present in the lane but respondent Arvind called his sons Ajay and Vijay
and thereafter Ajay and Vijay along with other co-accused persons came
there armed with sticks and entered into the house and beaten him by using
belt and stick and also abused him in a filthy language. He lodged a
report(exhibit P-1) at P.S. Kotwali, Guna. Rambharosa (PW-2), Vijay (PW-
3) also deposed in the same manner in their examination, but Rambharosa
(PW-2) admits in his cross examination that nobody has beaten Jagdish
before him using stick. 4-5 persons entered the house of complainant but he
does not know their names. Therefore, it is clear that Rambharosa(PW-2)
does not completely support the statement of complainant.
So far as reliability of statement of complainant Jagdish Prasad is
concerned, he categorically admits in his cross examination that respondent
Mamta Bai lodged an FIR against him at Police Station and on the basis of
said FIR criminal case is pending against him at Guna Court. He deposed in
his Court statement that respondent entered into his house but same was not
pleaded in his report (exhibit P-1). Therefore, there is material contradictions
and omissions in the statement of Jagdish with his report (exhibit P-1). After
lodging the FIR, under Section 354 of Cr.P.C., he made a report (exhibit P-1)
against the respondent, which appears to be doubtful because, it is not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7638
4 CRA-109-2007
supported by independent witness. Vijay(PW-3) is the son of Jagdish Prasad.
Therefore, he may be considered as interested witness.
On the basis of aforesaid evidence available on record, this Court is of
the considered view that on appreciation of evidence, if two views are
possible in the matter, then according to criminal jurisprudence out of such
view, Court is bound to accept the view which is favourable to the accused.
In the case at hand on appreciation of evidence apparently there were
two views, then trial Court has adopted the view which is favourable to
accused. Therefore, trial Court has rightly held that respondents are not guilty
of alleged offence under Section 451 of IPC. Thus, there is no substance in
the appeal.
Taking this view in the matter, no interference is called for in the
judgment of acquittal dated 25.8.2005 passed by trial Court. Appeal
preferred by complainant is accordingly dismissed. Respondents are on bail,
their bail bonds stand discharged.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
R
