Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 May, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13913
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S. KALGAONKAR
ON THE 29th MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.12323 OF 2024
1. NARAYAN SINGH
2. TIKAM SINGH
3. DASHRATH SINGH
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ANR.
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Rathore, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Madhusudan Yadav, Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Mayur Solanki, Advocate for the respondent
No.2/complainant.
JUDGMENT
This appeal u/S 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 [for short the 'SCST(PA) Act'
hereinafter] is filed assailing the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 24.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge,
SCST(PA)Act, Ujjain in Special Case No. 5/2019 whereby the
appellants/accused No.2 and 4 Narayansingh and Dashrathsingh were
convicted for an offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13913
34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SCST(PA) Act and were sentenced
to imprisonment for one day and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default
stipulation of additional Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 days. Appellant
No.3 Tikamsingh was convicted for offences punishable under Section
323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SCST(PA)
Act and was sentenced to imprisonment for working hours of the day and
fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation of additional imprisonment for
15 days.
2. The exposition of facts giving rise to present appeal, in brief, is as
under:
(a) As per the case of prosecution, Jitendra S/o Tolaram Balai
reported to P.S. Ingoria on 16.10.2018 at 4:30 hrs that on the
last night i.e 15.10.2018, around 8:30 in the night, he and his
family members were sitting at a local temple. Jitendra Singh
Raj, Narayan Singh Raj(appellant), Guddu alias Dashrath Singh
Raj(appellant) and Tikam Singh(appellant) objected to loud
music played by DJ and made obscene comments. When he
objected, the four accused began to scuffle with him. His
brother Rajendra, father Tolaram, Witnesses - Kailash Akhilesh,
Dheeraj, Bharat, Mukesh and Dharmendra intervened. When
his mother Chanda Bai tried to rescue him, Jitendra pushed her.
She fell down. Jitendra threatened to call army and abused them
with reference to their caste, if they again sit on otla (a raised
platform) of his house. On such allegations, P.S. Ingoria
registered FIR for offence punishable under Ss. 323, 294, 506 &
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13913
34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of
SCST(PA) Act against Jitendra Singh, Narayan Singh,
Tikamsingh and Dashrath. The injured were forwarded for
medico legal examination. No external injury was seen on body
of Jitendra. However, some injuries were found on body of
Totaram and Rajendra. Accused Jitendra Singh, Narayansingh,
Tikamsingh and Dashrathsingh were arrested. On completion of
investigation, final report was submitted.
(b) The learned Special Judge SC/ST (PA) Act, Ujjain framed
charges for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC, in the
alternative Section 323 read with 34 IPC (4 counts) read with
Section 3(2)(va) of SCST (PA) Act, Section 506 of IPC read
with Sec 3(2)(va) of SCST(PA) Act, Section 3(1)(r) of
SCST(PA)Act and Section 3(1)(s) of the SCST(PA)Act against
all the accused.
(c) On completion of trial, learned Special Judge convicted all the
accused - Jitendra Singh, Narayan Singh, Dashrath Singh and
Tikam Singh for offence punishable Section 323 read with
Section 34 IPC also read with Section 3(2)(va) of SCST (PA)
Act for voluntarily causing simple hurt to complainant Jitendra
knowing that Jitendra is member of Scheduled Caste vide
impugned judgment dated 24.10.2024. Learned Special Judge
acquitted accused Jitendra Singh, Narayan Singh, Dashrath
Singh and Tikam Singh from charges of all the other alleged
offences.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13913
(d) The appellants Jitendra Singh, Narayansingh, Tikamsingh,
Dashrathsingh and accused Jitendra Singh filed present appeal
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction on following
grounds:
(i) The impugned judgment is bad in law. The appellants were
falsely implicated in the alleged offence. The incident was of
trivial nature. There was no pre-meditation for commission
of the offence. The incident took place in the heat of passion
due to sudden quarrel between the parties.
(ii) The learned trial Court committed error in not considering
the omissions and contradiction in the statement of
prosecution witness.
3. On these grounds, it was requested that the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the appellants/accused
be acquitted giving them the benefit of doubt. Appellant Jitendara was
acquitted vide judgment dated 15.05.2025, passed in Cri.A. No.12323 of
2024.
4. The learned counsel for the remaining appellants in addition to the
grounds mentioned in the appeal contended that the allegation against the
appellants relates to scuffle with Jitendra. Jitendra did not suffer any
injury. Learned trial Court did not consider the relevant fact that the
appellants/accused had reported the incident to police station prior in
time than the complainant Jitendra. The prosecution in present matter is a
counter-blast to the complaint lodged by the appellant Jitendra.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State ably assisted by learned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13913
counsel for the complainant opposed the appeal and submitted that the
trial Court committed no error in convicting the appellants. The trial
Court has taken lenient view in sentencing the appellants. The appeal is
meritless.
6. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The points for determination, in the present appeal, are as under:
(i) Whether, appellants/accused voluntarily caused simple hurt to the
complainant Jitendra Balai knowing that complainant Jitendra is
a member of scheduled caste?
(ii) Whether learned Special Judge committed error in convicting the
appellants Narayansingh, Dashrathsingh and Tikamsingh for
offences punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC
also read with Section 3(2)(va) of SCST (PA) Act?
The points for determination - reasons for conclusion.
8. Both the points for determination are considered together as the
facts and conclusions are inter-related.
9. Jitendra(PW-2) deposed that he, alongwith his brother Rajendra
and father - Totaram was sitting near the temple. Accused - Jitendra
Singh, Narayan Singh, Dashrath Singh and Tikam Singh objected to the
sound of DJ and commented that whether prostitutes are dancing here.
When he objected to the comment, all the four accused assaulted him
with slaps and fist blows. He sustained injury on his waist. His brother -
Rajendra, father - Totaram and other witnesses rescued him. Tolaram
(PW-3), Rahul(PW-4), Rajendra (PW-2) generally supported the
allegations. However, when these witnesses were confronted with their
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13913
previous statements, it was revealed that the evidence with regard to
assault and causing injury by the accused to Jintendra is missing in their
previous statement. Apparently, assault by the accused with slap and fist
blows to Jitendra is exaggeration. According to the FIR(Ex. P-4) and
statement recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. (Ex. P-1), Jitendra had merely
alleged that all the accused scuffled with him.
10. Jitendra (PW-2) deposed that he sustained injury on his waist. This
testimony of Jitendra is not corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr.
Pramod Urgal(PW-7) had specifically stated that no external injury was
found on medical examination of Jitendra S/o Tolaram. The injured was
complaining about pain in right hand. The Medical Officer did not
depose that he had observed any external injury or complaint of pain on
waist of Jitendra.
11. The Investigation Officer, Inspector Magan Singh Katara (PW-8)
in cross examination, para 7, 8 and 9 had specifically deposed that
accused Jitendra had lodged FIR exhibit (D-3) against the complainant
party. He had investigated the other complaint also. He had recovered
wooden stick, a 12 Bore Gun and other articles and arrested the
complainant Jitendra, his father Tolaram and brother - Rajendra and
accused Rahul during investigation on the FIR lodged by accused
Jitendra. Sub-Inspector Shantilal Meena (PW-6) deposed that he had
registered FIR in present matter (Ex. P-4) on complaint of Jitendra. He
further admitted that the complainant Jitendra has lodged FIR with delay
of 01 day, whereas the accused party has lodged the FIR against the
complainant party with regard to house-breaking, assault and obscene
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13913
abuses in the night of 15.10.2018. Rahul(PW-5) in cross-examination
(para 6) admitted that accused Jitendra and Narayan had lodged report
against him and complainant Jitendra. Tolaram (PW-3) in para 6 of the
cross-examination admitted that he and his sons are facing trial on
allegation of house breaking, assault and threatening by use of gun on the
report of the accused party. Jitendra (PW-2) has also admitted this fact.
12. The material on record shows that there was an altercation between
the parties regarding loud sound of DJ. The accused party objected to it.
There was a scuffle between the parties. The accused party lodged FIR
(Ex. D-3) and later, complainant Jitendra lodged present FIR (Ex. P-4)
merely alleging that accused Jitendra alongwith appellants Narayansingh,
Tikamsingh and Dashrathsingh had a scuffle with him. However, during
evidence, Jitendra (PW-2) exaggerated that he was assaulted by all the
accused. They slapped and gave fist blows to him. These exaggerated
allegations are not supported by medical evidence.
13. Learned trial Court considered the factum of counter allegations
and FIR by accused Jitendra and discussed it in detail in para 29 to para
37 of the impugned judgment and concluded that the prosecution has
failed to prove beyond doubt that the accused have voluntarily caused
simple hurt to Tolaram, Rajendra and Chanda Bai. However, on the same
set of evidence, learned trial Court convicted the appellants for
voluntarily causing simple hurt to the complainant Jitendra. In para 39 of
the judgment, learned trial Court considered the fact that Jitendra (PW-2)
initially complained that all the accused had a scuffle with him and the
allegation with regard to assault by slap and fist blows is an exaggeration,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13913
still, trial Court convicted the appellants for voluntarily causing simple
hurt ignoring the fact that the exaggerated allegations are not
corroborated by the medical evidence and the FIR. The reasons and
conclusions given by the trial Court are apparently erroneous.
14. In view of aforesaid discussion, the Court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that accused Narayansingh, Dashrathsingh and Tikamsingh had
voluntarily caused simple hurt to the complainant Jitendra S/o Totaram
knowing that Jitendra is a member of Scheduled Caste. The trial Court
should have extended benefit of doubt to the accused.
15. Consequently, present appeal is allowed and the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.10.2024 passed by
learned Special Judge, SCST(PA)Act, Ujjain in Special Case No.5/2019
is set aside. Appellants/accused - Narayansingh, Dashrathsingh and
Tikamsingh are acquitted of the charge for offence punishable under
Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC also read with Section 3(2)(va) of
SCST (PA) Act. The personal bond and surety bond of appellants are
discharged. They shall be entitled to remittance of fine amount, if
deposited.
A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the trial Court with the
relevant record.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
pn
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13913
