Back
IN THE HIGH OF MADHYA PRADESH
N.K. Gupta, J.
State of M.P. v. Veeru and three others
Criminal Appeal No.1619 of 1998 (Jabalpur) : against the judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen, passed in
Criminal Case No.510 of 1996;
Decided on 14.9.2012.
Held : Under such circumstances, where the testimony of the complainant is no where corroborated by any eye-witness, his story is unnatural. There was no reason for the respondents to keep the complainant for the entire night with them and if Veeru and Omkar had cut his fingers then there was no need for them to take the complainant to the hospital. In the light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble the apex Court in the case of Sudhir (supra), several infirmities are found in the evidence of the victim and, therefore, the sole testimony of the victim cannot be relied upon. It is not proved beyond doubt that the respondents had assaulted the complainant Mangal Singh and they are entitled for the benefit of doubt. It is not proved beyond doubt that five persons were involved in the crime or the respondents were the persons who, assaulted the complainant. Under such circumstances, the respondents could not be convicted for offence punishable under section 326 of IPC or any inferior offence of similar nature either directly or with the help of section 34 or 149 of the IPC. They could not be convicted for offence punishable under section 148 or 147 of IPC because it was not proved that an unlawful assembly was constituted. Hence, if the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has given the benefit of doubt to the respondents and acquitted them then there is no basis by which any interference can be drawn to the conclusions drawn by the learned CJM, Raisen. 1985 JLJ 555 (SC) followed.
naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 147] 148] 342] 325 rFkk 326 lgifBr /kkjk 149 && geyk djus rFkk vaxqfy;k¡ dkVus ds vijk/k && ifjoknh dh dgkuh vLokHkkfod && dgha Hkh fdlh izR;{kn’khZ lk{kh }kjk laiq”V ugha && mlds lk{; esa vusd ‘kSfFkY;rk,¡ && mldk ,dek= lk{; voyafcr ugha fd;k tk ldrk && vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa dh vijk/k esa layXurk lansg ds ijs lkfcr ugha && lansg ds Qk;ns ds gdnkjA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds v/khu] tgk¡ ifjoknh dk ifjlk{; dgha Hkh fdlh izR;{kn’khZ lk{kh }kjk laiq”V ugha gS] mldh dgkuh vLokHkkfod gSA ifjoknh dks laiw.kZ jkf= vius lkFk j[kus dk izR;FkhZx.k ds fy;s dksbZ dkj.k ugha Fkk rFkk ;fn oh: rFkk vksadkj us mldh vaxqfy;k¡ dkVh Fkha rc mUgsa ifjoknh dks vLirky ys tkus dh dksbZ vko’;drk ugha FkhA lq/khj ¼iwoksZDr½] ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ds izdk’k esa] ihfM+r ds lk{; esa vusd ‘kSfFkY;rk,¡ ikbZ xbZ rFkk blfy, ihfM+r dk ,dek= lk{; voyafcr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ;g lansg ds ijs lkfcr ugha gqvk fd izR;FkhZx.k us ifjoknh eaxy flag ij geyk fd;k rFkk os lansg ds Qk;ns ds gdnkj gSA ;g lansg ds ijs lkfcr ugha gS fd vijk/k esa ik¡p O;fDr lfEefyr Fks ;k izR;FkhZx.k us gh ifjoknh ij geyk fd;kA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds v/khu] izR;FkhZx.k dks naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 326 ;k leku izd`fr dh fdlh fuEurj vijk/k ds fy;s izR;{k :i ls ;k naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 34 ;k 149 dh lgk;rk ls fl)nks”k ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrk Fkk D;ksafd ;g lkfcr ugha gqvk Fkk fd fof/k fo#) teko dk xBu gqvk FkkA blfy,] ;fn eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV us izR;FkhZx.k dks lansg dk Qk;nk fn;k gS rFkk mUgsa nks”keqDr fd;k gS rc fdlh Hkh vk/kkj ij eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] jk;lsu }kjk fudkys x, fu”d”kksZa esa gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 1985 ts ,y ts 555 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA
1. The appellant-State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 11.9.1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen in Criminal Case No.510/1996 whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 342, 325 and 326 read with section 149 of IPC.
2. Prosecution’s case, in short, is that on 18.8.1990 at about 8:00 p.m. the complainant Mangal Singh (PW1) was watching TV in the shop of Nathu Miya at Village Amrawad (Police Station Raisen, District Raisen). At about 8:30 p.m. respondents Veeru @ Ram Chandra, Omkar, Prem and Narbada along with one Kishan came to the spot and covered Mangal Singh’s eyes with a strip of cloth and thereafter, they assaulted the complainant with sticks. Around 3:00 - 4:00 a.m. in the night they took him to the Chikni Ghati and respondents Veeru and Omkar chopped off four of his fingers from both the hands with the help of an axe. At that time the respondents Prem and Narbada and one Kishan held the complainant bound with a rope. The offence was caused by the respondents because of the enmity between the complainant and the respondents caused by the complainant taking his cattle through the medh of the field of the respondents. The complainant was left at the hospital where he lodged a Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-1 before ASI Chhatarpal Singh Solanki (PW9). A requisition for his medical examination was given by Shri Solanki. Dr. J.P. Naik (PW6) examined the complainant and gave his report Ex.P-9. He found some blunt injuries on the back, right thigh and left elbow of the victim Mangal Singh but, two fingers of his left hand and two fingers of his right hand were found cut with a sharp cutting weapon and, therefore, the victim was referred for his X-ray examination. Dr. A.C. Agrawal (PW7) after performing the radiological examination of the complainant gave his report Ex.P-11. He found that there were fractures caused due to four fingers in both his hands being cut. In the right hand the first phalanx of ring finger and middle finger were absent and the fracture was visible. Similarly in the left hand the first phalanx of ring finger and middle finger were absent and fractures were found on such bones. After due investigation a charge-sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen.
3. The respondents abjured their guilt. They did not take any specific plea but, they have stated that they were falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity. The complainant was a criminal who was in a habit to do robbery on the highway and, therefore, how his injuries were caused was not known to them. No defence evidence was laid.
4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen after considering the prosecution’s evidence acquitted the respondents from all the charges.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the trial Court has wrongly disbelieved the complainant. He was assaulted by the respondents and especially the respondents Veeru and Omkar cut his four fingers with the help of an axe. Such an act could not be done by two persons unless others would have held the victim and, therefore, it is apparent that an unlawful assembly was constituted by the respondents. Under such circumstances, it is submitted that the respondents be convicted for offence punishable under section 326 read with sections 149 and 148 of IPC and be sentenced accordingly.
7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complainant lodged a Dehati Nalishi which cannot be treated as FIR. In support of his contention he placed his reliance upon the judgment passed by Single Bench of this Court in the case of Gulab v. State of M.P. [1991(II) MPWN 182]. It is further submitted that the FIR lodged by the complainant himself was not trustworthy. All the eye-witnesses turned hostile. A cooked eye-witness Karan Singh (PW8) was created by the prosecution. There were many deformities in th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
