Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Chenu on 25 April, 2025
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Atul Sreedharan, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:19399
1 MCRC-5488-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 25th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5488 of 2018
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
CHENU
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Government Advocate for the State-petitioner.
ORDER
Per: Justice Smt. Anuradha Shukla
Petitioner-State is aggrieved by the judgment passed on 30.11.2017 by
Third Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh, in Sessions Trial
No.600174/2001, hence this petition under Section 378(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for seeking leave to appeal against
the finding of acquittal recorded under Sections 148, 307/149 and 332/149 of
IPC passed in favour of respondent Chenu Kushwaha.
2. Brief facts relevant here are that in the intervening night of 31.5.2000
and 1.6.2000 Shankar Singh and Pooran, travelling in a vehicle of TATA
709, were robbed by respondent Chenu and his companions, at gunpoint, of
cash amount of Rs.2,000/- and eight bags of Mahua; a report was lodged at
Crime No.221/2000 on the same night in Police Station, Kotwali, district
Tikamgarh, for offence of Section 394 IPC; the police party went in search
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:19399
2 MCRC-5488-2018
of offenders and tracking the Mahua seeds lying on the road, they reached to
the house of accused persons; this house was surrounded by a boundary with
a gate; an electric wire was passing through this structure and when the
police party tried to open the gate, they all sustained electric shock; before
they could recover, a gunshot was fired towards them; Ramdas, a companion
of respondent Chenu, gave a blow with lohangi on the neck of Head
Constable Mahesh; Ghanshyam, Hardas, Chenu, Devdaiya, Basente, Bhajju,
Ramcharan and few others attacked Head Constable Pradeep Tiwari and
Constable Rajkumar; another gunshot fire was caused by the offenders' side
which forced the police party to escape; they returned to Police Station,
Kotwali, and registered an FIR at Crime No.222/2000. The matter was
investigated and charge-sheet was filed.
3. Accused Ghanshyam alone was in custody at the time of filing charge-
sheet and rest of the accused, namely Chenu, the present respondent,
Ramdas, Devdaiya, Basente and Ramcharan, were absent; the Magistrate-
Court directed to summon them through arrest warrant and except accused
Devdaiya, all appeared in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and the case
was committed for trial. During trial Devdaiya too, gave appearance on
2.7.2012 at the stage of prosecution evidence, however, respondent Chenu
defaulted appearance and was later declared absconding. Against rest of the
persons, who were charge-sheeted in the case, a judgment of acquittal was
delivered on 12.2.2014; respondent Chenu was arrested on 20.6.2017 and
after holding trial against him, he too was acquitted under the impugned
judgment.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:19399
3 MCRC-5488-2018
4. Challenging the impugned judgment, the grounds raised in this petition
for seeking leave to appeal are that the learned trial court failed to properly
appreciate the evidence and committed grave error in law in acquitting him;
it is submitted that there was sufficient evidence to hold respondent Chenu
guilty of the offence of Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 332/149 IPC,
still a judgment acquittal was passed which is illegal and contrary to the facts
available on record. A request has, therefore, been made to allow this
petition and grant leave to appeal.
5. Counsel for the State has been heard on this petition and record has been
perused.
6. From perusal of record of the sessions trial case, it can be gathered that
two judgments were delivered in the case - first one against five persons and
the second one against respondent Chenu. No information is given by
counsel for the State whether the earlier judgment passed in favour of five
persons writing their order of acquittal was ever challenged by State in any
petition for grant of leave to appeal. It may also be observed here that no
other petition is linked with the present case for analogous hearing. Thus, it
can be inferred that despite there being two judgments of acquittal passed in
Sessions Trial No.600174/2001, only one has been assailed by the State.
7. Interestingly, Hardas, who was originally charge-sheeted as accused in
the case, had died and a Magisterial Enquiry was held by Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Tikamgarh, in Case No.541/B-121/99-2000. The enquiry was to
examine whether Hardas died in the incident of gunshot injury caused to him
by the police party. The enquiry report dated 11.6.2001 reveals that after the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:19399
4 MCRC-5488-2018
police party entered into the house of present respondent Chenu, an
altercation followed and in this dispute Hardas sustained injuries. The reason
of his injuries could not be ascertained in the enquiry and even the allegation
that police had fired any gunshot on the spot, was held as not established.
8. From the above, it is proved that police party had gone to the house of
respondent Chenu and in the following events Hardas, from the accused
party, sustained fatal injuries. What is perturbing is that the FIR (Ex.P-13)
makes no disclosure about the injuries caused to Hardas. Prosecution
documents reveal that on the date of incident i.e. 1.6.2000 itself and just two
hours after the incident, Hardas was brought to hospital in an injured
condition. The intimation given about his admission is Ex.P-14 wherein the
hospital authority had informed the police that Hardas was brought to
hospital by his brother Chenu, respondent herein, with a gunshot wound on
left side of his stomach about which respondent Chenu was claiming that it
was caused by Constable Rameshwar Tripathi. The MLC report of Hardas is
Ex.P-15 and Ex.P-19 is his dying declaration. This dying declaration, too,
was recorded on the date of incident itself at 6:00 a.m. Ex.P-12 is his post-
mortem report dated 16.6.2000.
9. From above, it is established that in the altercation between police party
and accused side Hardas, the brother of respondent Chenu, received fatal
injuries, however, neither in the FIR nor through the court testimony, the
prosecution made any endeavour to disclose this significant fact. FIR (Ex.P-
13) barely discloses that driver Mahesh had sustained electric shock and was
also assaulted by Ramdas Kachhi. Though it claims that a gunfire was shot at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:19399
5 MCRC-5488-2018
the police party and respondent Chenu along with his companions started
physical assault on the police personnel, but admittedly no one from party
sustained any gunshot injuries in the incident.
10. Only two MLC reports have been exhibited in evidence and they are of
complainant Mahesh Kumar and of deceased Hardas. This reflects that only
Mahesh Kumar on the complainant side had sustained three injuries in the
incident, which were in the nature of contusions caused by a hard and blunt
object and in the absence of any X-ray report, none of these injuries is
grievous in nature. Further Ramdas, who had allegedly assaulted the
informant Mahesh, has already been given a finding of acquittal under the
judgment delivered earlier i.e. on 12.02.2014 and it has already been
discussed in para no.5 that the record does not show any leave to appeal
being filed against that judgment of acquittal. Thus, if main assailant,
allegedly Ramdas, already stands acquitted of the charge of causing injuries
to complainant Mahesh, respondent Chenu could not have been convicted of
the offence of having any common object with Ramdas for causing these
injuries to complainant Mahesh. Therefore, his acquittal under Section
332/149 is legally justified.
11. Respondent Chenu has been acquitted of the charge of attempting the
murder of Mahesh Kumar for which he had to suffer trial for offence of
Section 307/149 IPC. Admittedly, a charge was framed against other persons
under Section 302/149 IPC, but complainant police party was silent in its
FIR about the injuries caused to deceased/victim Hardas. It is also not
revealed in any of the documents submitted along with charge-sheet that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:19399
6 MCRC-5488-2018
Hardas was caused any injury by respondent Chenu or his companions. On
the contrary, the dying declaration of Hardas recorded on the date of incident
itself and marked as Ex.-P/19 suggests that a gun shot was fired at him by the
police-party on account of which he sustained injuries.
12. Shankar Singh (P.W.1) claims to have accompanied the police party to
the village of respondent but he does not state that any gunshot was fired by
the respondent or a member of his party. According to this witness, he was
inside his vehicle when he heard the sound of gunshot and soon thereafter,
police party came back. Therefore, this witness has made no incriminating
statement against respondent Chenu or his team members. Complainant
A.S.I., Mahesh Prasad Rai (P.W.8) has claimed that he first suffered an
electric shock while opening the gate and later, a gunshot was fired from the
respondent side when they attacked the police party but he has not revealed
the name of person causing that gunshot. In para no.21 of his cross-
examination, he merely discloses that he could not see the person firing the
gun. He also admits that the police-party too was having two guns and it was
a pitch dark-raining night. His statements, if taken wholesomely, do not
reveal that any gunshot was fired by respondent side or any attempt was
made to commit murder of any of the members of police-party.
13. Having considered these facts and the relevant evidence, it can be
summed up that the prosecution has not been able to challenge the acquittal
of respondent under the offence of Section 307/149 IPC.
14. The trial Court also acquitted respondent Chenu for the offence of
Section 148 of IPC. It is an admitted position that the place of incident was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:19399
7 MCRC-5488-2018
the house of respondent Chenu. It has been claimed by the prosecution that
respondent and his companions constituted an unlawful assembly and used
violence to commit rioting but from the evidence, it is clear that respondent
was inside his house when the police party arrived there. No evidence is led
to show that on seeing the police party, respondent asked his companions to
gather and join him so that the police action can be thwarted. The testimony
of prosecution witnesses does not reveal that there was any prior meeting of
minds on the part of respondent and his companions or they were
apprehending the arrival of police party and to avoid the action of police,
they had gathered with a common object to use violence or attack the police
party.
15. The genesis of story, according to prosecution, is that Shankar Singh
was robbed of money and bags of Mahua and on receiving this information
from Shankar Singh, the police party went to the house of respondent. The
report allegedly made by Shankar about this robbery was, however, not
produced in evidence. Furthermore, Shankar Singh (P.W.1) has admitted in
para no.7 of his cross-examination that he was not robbed by the accused
party. Para no.13 of his cross-examination further clarifies this fact wherein
he has admitted that no crime was committed with him by the accused party.
His statements render the narrative, as set out by prosecution, completely
deprived of truth and credibility.
16. In view of facts argued and the evidence considered, we come to the
conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to establish that respondent
in this case was involved in commission of any crime and, contrarily,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:19399
8 MCRC-5488-2018
prosecution was surreptitiously silent about the death of Hardas, the brother
of respondent, who in his dying declaration, had claimed that he was caused
a gunshot injury by a member of police-party i.e. the complainant side. The
reason assigned for raiding the house of respondent also stands belied in the
face of testimony of Shankar (P.W.1). Therefore, on the basis of these facts,
we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted
respondent Chenu of all charges and prosecution has not been able to make
out a case which would justify the indulgence of this Court in the impugned
finding. Accordingly, the petition for seeking leave to appeal is dismissed.
17. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
ps/np
