Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramnarayan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1563 (1)
Cr.R. No. 849 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 849 of 2020
RAMNARAYAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Singh Jadon, Advocate for applicants.
Shri N.K.Gupta, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Reserved on : 21/01/2025
Pronounced on : 06/02/2025
ORDER
This revision petition, under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C, has been filed
against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03/02/2020 passed by III
Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, in Criminal Appeal No.51/2018 arising out
of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03/02/2018 passed by JMFC,
Guna, in Criminal Case No. 2414/2012. The applicants have been convicted
and sentenced as follows:
Convicted under section Sentenced to
325/34 of IPC Undergo RI for 1 year with fine of
(in respect of injured Murarilal) Rs.400/- in default to suffer SI for 15
days.
325/34 of IPC Undergo RI for 1 year with fine of
(in respect of injured Rajkapoor) Rs.400/- in default to suffer SI for 15
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1563 (2)
days.
323/34 of IPC Undergo RI for 3 months
(in respect of injured Murarilal)
323/34 of IPC Undergo RI for 3 months.
(in respect of injured Rajkapoor)
2. Facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are that on
29/09/2012 at about 10:30 p.m., complainant Murarilal Ahirwar and his
colleague Raj Kapoor, along with Chaukidar were about to go to bed after
having their meals. At that time, Pappu Sehariya, Ram Narayan (Applicant No.
1), who were armed with Luhangis, Dhanraj (Applicant No. 2), who was armed
with Lathi, and Siriya (applicant no.3), who was armed with Gadasi, came to
the outpost and started abusing them in the name of mother and sister.
When it was enquired by the complainant as to why they are abusing, then
applicant No. 2 Dhanraj said that why they are preventing them from
cultivating the Government land even when lot of persons have already
encroached upon the Government land. He also threatened that they would also
cultivate the land situated by the side of the outpost. Then Raj Kapoor replied
that they would not allow government land to be cultivated. Then, Pappu
instigated other accused persons. Accordingly, Ram Narayan assaulted
complainant by Luhangi, which landed above the left eyebrow, and Dhanraj
gave a Lathi blow which landed on the palm of his left hand. Complainant also
sustained injury on the right side of his head. Similarly, Siriya (Applicant No.
3) gave a Gadasi blow on the head of Raj Kapoor, and Pappu assaulted
Rajkapoor by Lathi causing injuries on the back side of right thigh and palm of
his right hand. When Chaukidar tried to save them, he was assaulted by
Dhanraj with fists and blows and was thrown on the ground, as a result he
sustained an injury on his temporal region and neck. They raised alarm, but
since it was night, therefore, nobody came forward to save them. It was also
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1563 (3)
alleged in the FIR that all four accused persons were known to the complainant,
and while fleeing away, they also threatened that if they are stopped from
cultivating Government land then they would kill them and they would also
destroy the outpost. Accordingly, on the information given by the complainant,
Police registered Crime No. 165/2012 at Police Station Fatehgarh for offences
under Sections 323, 294, 506-B, 353, and 34 of IPC.
The injured persons were medically examined. Spot map was prepared.
Statements of witnesses were recorded. Property was seized, a photocopy of
the forest beat map was also seized, and complainants' duty certificates were
also collected. Applicants were arrested. Since Murari Lal and Raj Kapoor had
suffered fractures, offence under Section 325 of IPC was also added. Since
fourth accused Pappu was absconding, therefore, an absconsion panchnama
was prepared. After completing the investigation, police filed a charge sheet
against the applicants.
Magistrate, by order dated 30/04/2014 committed the case and the trial
court, by order dated 05/08/2014 framed charges for offences under Sections
294, 325/34 IPC for causing grievous injury to Murarilal, 325/34 IPC for
causing grievous injury to Raj Kapoor, 323/34 IPC for causing simple injury to
Mangilal, 324/34 IPC for causing simple injury to Murari Lal, 324/34 IPC for
causing simple injury to Raj Kapoor, and 506 Part 2 of IPC.
Applicants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.
Prosecution examined Murarilal (PW1), Lalaram (PW2), Mangilal
(PW3), Rajkapoor (PW4), Dashrath Akhand (PW5), Dr. Sitaram Raghuvansi
(PW6), Vinod Chaurasiaya (PW7), Kan Singh (PW8) and Rambabu Singh
Raghuvanshi (PW9).
Applicants did not examine any witness in their defence.
The trial court, by judgment of conviction and sentence dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1563 (4)
03/02/2018, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned above. Being
aggrieved by the judgment and sentence passed by the trial court, applicants
preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed by judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 03/02/2020, passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Guna,
in Criminal Appeal No. 51/2018.
3. Challenging the judgment and sentence recorded by the Courts below, it
is submitted by counsel for applicants that conviction has been recorded on the
basis of suspicion and conjectures and prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that Courts below have
ignored contradictions and omissions. Raj Kapoor (PW 4) alleged that he was
assaulted by Siriya by Luhangi, whereas there is complete omission in this
regard in his police statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Lalaram
(PW 2), who is an independent witness, did not support the prosecution case.
Medical evidence does not corroborate the allegations made by prosecution
witnesses. In fact, complainants were trying to extract illegal gratification from
the applicants and when they did not fulfill their demands, they were falsely
implicated. It is submitted that injuries suffered by prosecution witnesses were
simple in nature. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel relied upon
judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, State of U.P.
Vs. Mohd. Iqram & Anr. reported in (2011) 8 SCC 80, Bhajan Singh alias
Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2011) 7 SCC 421, State
of Haryana Vs. Surender & Ors. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 281, Dinesh
Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2008)8 SCC 270, Kali Ram Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (1973) 2 SCC 808, Gambhir Vs.
State of Maharashtra reported in (1982)2 SCC 351, and Ram Jag & Ors.
Vs. State of UP reported in (1974)4 SCC 201.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1563 (5)
4. Per contra, learned counsel for State has supported the reasoning and
findings given by the Courts below and submitted that applicants have failed to
point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below.
5. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
6. Murari Lal (PW1), who is one of the injured witnesses, has supported the
prosecution case. It was stated by him that on 29/09/2012 at about 10:30 p.m.,
he, Raj Kapoor, and Chaukidar Mangilal were at the Silvati Forest Outpost.
After having their meals, they were sleeping. At that time, all the four accused
persons including Pappu (absconding) came there and started abusing in the
name of mother and sister and started scolding them as to why they are
restraining them from cultivating the Government land even though other
persons are already cultivating it. When it was replied by Rajkapoor that they
will not allow them to cultivate the land adjoining to the forest outpost, then
co-accused Pappu instigated other accused persons. Thereafter Ramnarayan
gave Luhangi blow causing injury on his left eyebrow, Dhanraj gave a Lathi
blow causing fracture of the palm of his left hand, Siriya gave a Gadasi blow
on the head of Rajkapoor, Pappu also assaulted Rajkapoor by Lathi which
landed on the back side of his right thigh, he also sustained injury on palm of
right hand. When Chowkidar tried to intervene in the matter, then he was
assaulted by Dhanraj by fists and blows, as a result he sustained injury on the
back side of his neck and temporal region. It was challenged by the applicants
that in case if they are not allowed to cultivate the Government land, then they
will kill them and will also destroy the forest outpost. Information was given to
forest officers and at about 1 to 1.30 AM, FIR was lodged at Fatehgarh Police
Station as Ex.P/1. This witness was cross-examined and he admitted that for
last 3-4 months he was posted at the forest outpost Silavati. He admitted that
the huts of Dhanraj, Pappu, Prakash, Sehariya are situated near the outpost.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1563 (6)
However, he denied that the applicants are in possession of the Government
land for last several years though he clarified that the huts are constructed. It
was denied by him that he had tried to remove the huts along with Rajkumar.
He claimed that for last 2-4 days applicants were cultivating the land adjoining
to the forest oupost and it was objected by the complainants. However he
denied that they had demanded money and when it was not paid by the
applicants then their huts were demolished and their belongings were thrown
out. He admitted that at the time of incident, he, Rajkapoor and Mangilal
Seharia were in the forest outpost and they were attacked by applicants inside
the forest outpost. Thereafter, he clarified that they were attacked in the
corridor of forest outpost. He also stated that he informed the Ranger on
Mobile. The Ranger reached the spot after 2-3 hours of the incident. He denied
that FIR was lodged on the next day. He denied the suggestion that he and
Rajkapoor had fallen down on stones and, as a result, they sustained injuries.
7. Lalaram (PW2) has turned hostile and he has not supported the
prosecution case. Mangilal (PW3) also turned hostile and did not support the
prosecution case.
8. Rajkapoor (PW4) has supported the prosecution case. He stated that he
was posted as Forest Guard at the Police Outpost Silavati. On 29/9/2012, all the
four accused persons came to the outpost. At the relevant point of time,
another forest guard Murarilal Ahirwar was also there. All the accused persons
started abusing them filthily in the name of mother and sister. Then Siriya
assaulted him by Luhangi on the back side of his head. Ramnarayan assaulted
Murarilal by Lathi. All the accused persons were alleging that in case if they
stay back, then applicants will not be in a position to encroach upon the
Government land and, therefore, they were assaulting the forest party. The
incident was narrated to Ranger on phone. It is further stated that they were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1563 (7)
posted in the forest outpost for protection of forest land. In cross-examination,
he could not explain as to why the fact that Siriya had assaulted him by
Luhangi which caused injury on the back side of his head, is not mentioned in
his police statement (Ex.D/2) (In his police statement it was alleged that
Siriya had assaulted by Gadasi causing injury on his head). This witness
further denied that the nearby forest land is being cultivated by different
persons.
9. Dashrath Akhand (PW-5) was posted as Ranger. He has stated that he
was informed about the incident by Murarilal. He immediately went to the spot
and found Murari and Rajkapoor in an injured condition. On query, he was
informed by them that the accused persons had assaulted them by Lathi,
Luhangi and Pharsa. Thus, it is clear that Dashrath Akhand (PW5) is a hearsay
witness but he has corroborated the evidence of Murarilal (PW1) and
Rajkapoor (PW4).
10. Dr. Sitaram Singh Raghuvanshi (PW6) had found fracture of middle
finger of one hand of Rajkapoor vide Ex.P/8. Similarly, he found fracture of
third metacarpal bone of left hand of Murarilal vide Ex.P/9.
11. Vinod Chaurasiya (PW7) had medically examined the witnesses and
found following injuries on the body of Murarilal vide Ex.P/10:-
1. Contusion 1½ cm x 1 cm on right parietal region of skull
reddish. Advised X-ray of skull, Anterior Posterior and Lateral.
2. Lacerated wound ¼ x ¼ cm deep upto muscle on left
side of forehead, clotting present, reddish, advised X-ray of
skull, anterior and lateral
3. Diffused swelling 5 cm x 4 cm on left hand, advised X-
ray of left hand, anterior and lateral.
All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object, duration
within about 24 hours, patient referred to surgical Specialist
and Orthopedic Specialist for F/M
However, in his evidence, this witness has deposed before the trial Court that
Murarilal had also suffered several contusions, maximum size of which was 2½
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1563 (8)
cm x 2 cm and minimum size was 1 cm x ½ cm, on both sides of back.
He found following injuries on the body of Mangilal vide Ex.P/11
1. Abrasion ¼ cm x ¼ cm on right cheek, reddish c/b
2. C/o pain over the neck. Clinically no evidence of any
external injury down over the neck.
Injury No.1 was caused by hard & blunt object, duration within
about 24 hours, simple in nature.
He found following injuries on the body of Rajkapoor vide Ex.P/12
1. Lacerated wound 2 ½ cm x ½ cm x deep upto bone, on
parietooccipital region of skull, blood clot present, reddish,
advised X-ray of skull, anterior posterior and lateral
2. Contusion 5 cm x 1 cm on right thigh reddish
3. Abrasion ¼ cm x ¼ cm with swelling 4 cm x 3 cm on
right hand reddish, advised X-ray of right hand, anterior,
posterior and lateral.
All the injuries were caused by hard & blunt object. Duration
within about 24 hours. Injury No.2 simple. Patient referred to
Surgical Specialist for F/M.
This witness was not cross-examined except by giving suggestion that they
could have sustained injuries by fall. Kan Singh (PW8) is the Investigating
Officer.
12. From plain reading of evidence of Murarilal (PW1) and Rajkapoor
(PW4), who are the injured witnesses, it is clear that both the witnesses were
posted as forest guards and it was their duty to protect the forest land. The
allegation is that applicants were trying to encroach upon the Government land
and when it was resisted by the forest officials, then they were assaulted. The
incident was immediately narrated by Murarilal on phone to Dashrath Akhand
(PW5), who also reached the spot. Injuries which were found on the body of
injured witnesses, corroborate the ocular evidence of witnesses. FIR was
lodged within 3 hours of the incident and the distance of the place of incident
from the Police Station is 25 Kms. Injured persons, first of all informed the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1563 (9)
forest officer who came on the spot and thereafter the FIR was lodged.
Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any delay in lodging of FIR. Both
the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact and the counsel for
applicants could not point out any material omission or contradiction in the
evidence of witnesses. Every minor contradiction or omission is not sufficient
to discard the evidence of injured witnesses. Injuries sustained by the witnesses
including fracture is an additional guarantee with regard to presence of the
witnesses on the spot. Furthermore, this Court, in exercise of power under
Section 397/401 of CrPC, has limited scope of interference. As no perversity
could be pointed out by counsel for applicants, this Court is of considered
opinion that no case is made out warranting interference.
13. Accordingly, judgment dated 03/02/2020 passed by Third Additional
Sessions Judge, Guna, in Criminal Appeal No.51/2018 and judgment dated
03/02/2018 passed by JMFC, Guna, in Criminal Case No. 2414/2012 are
hereby affirmed.
Applicants are on bail. Their bail bonds are, hereby, canceled.
They are directed to surrender before the trial court latest by 28/02/2025,
failing which trial court shall be free to proceed against the applicants as well
as sureties.
14. Let a copy of this order, along with the records of the courts below, be
sent back for necessary information and compliance.
15. The revision fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
(G.S.Ahluwalia)
Judge
(and)
