Harendrajeet Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(MP) 152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
Harendrajeet Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 5697 of 2019 (Jabalpur): against the judgment dated 20.6.2019 passed by the XXI Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (M. P. & M. L. A.), Bhopal in Special Case (P. P. M.) No. 41/2018; Decided on 11.4.2023

Advocates:
Sankalp Kochar for appellant; Alok Agnihotri,
Deputy Government Advocate for respondent/State.

Headnote:
(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 353 -- essential requirement -- public servant must be assaulted or subjected to criminal force when he was carrying out his responsibilities, or with goal of preventing or discouraging him from doing his duties. [Para 17
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 353 -- complainant public servant admitted that at time of incident, he was not performing any official duty and appellant had neither created any hurdle, nor deterred him from performing official duty -- required ingredients of S. 353 not available. (2015) 7 SCC 423 followed. Cr. M. C. No. 4477 of 2019 (Ker.) and 1995 SCC Online P&H 157 relied on. 1996 SCC Online Raj. 153 referred to. [Paras 21, 24 & 27
(3) FIR -- delay in lodging FIR -- no plausible explanation for lodging alleged report after delay of two years -- that incident was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha or conveyed to superior officer, is not sufficient explanation to establish as to why report was not lodged immediately after incident. (2016) 16 SCC 418 followed. [Para 25
(4) Witness -- delay in lodging FIR -- not properly explained by prosecution witnesses -- credibility of witnesses doubtful -- delay explained by cogent explanation -- reliability of witnesses cannot be doubted. [Para 26
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 &&/kkjk 353 && vfuok;Z la?kVd && yksd lsod ij geyk vkijkf/kd cy dk iz;ksx mlds }kjk vius mÙkjnkf;Roksa dk fuoZgu fd, tkrs le; vFkok mls vius drZO; djus ls jksdus ;k fu#Rlkfgr djus ds vk'k; ls fd;k tkuk vko';dA ¼iSjk 17
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 &&/kkjk 353 && ifjoknh yksd lsod us Lohdkj fd;k fd ?kVuk ds le; og dksbZ inh; drZO; ugha dj jgk Fkk rFkk vihykFkhZ us u rks dksbZ ck/kk Mkyh Fkk u mls inh; drZO; djus ls fuokfjr gh fd;k Fkk && èkkjk 353 ds visf{kr la?kVd miyC/k ughaA ¼2015½7 ,l lh lh 423 vuqlfjrA lhvkj- ,e-lh- Ø- 4477 lu~ 2019 ¼dsjy½ rFkk 1995 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ia- ,oa gfj- 157 voyafcrA 1996 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu jkt- 153 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 21] 24 ,oa 27
¼3½ izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djus esa foyac && vfHkdfFkr fjiksVZ nks o"kZ ds foyac ds i'pkr~ nkf[ky djus ds fy, dksbZ lR;kHkklh Li"Vhdj.k ugha && ;g fd ?kVuk jkstukepk lUgk esa vfHkfyf[kr dh xbZ Fkh vFkok ofj"B vf/kdkjh dks lwfpr dh xbZ Fkh] ;g LFkkfir djus ds fy, i;kZIr Li"Vhdj.k ugha fd fjiksVZ ?kVuk ds rqjar i'pkr~ D;ksa nkf[ky ugha dh xbZA ¼2016½16 ,l lh lh 418 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 25
¼4½ lk{kh && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djus esa foyac && vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa }kjk mfpr :i ls Li"VhÑr ugha && lkf{k;ksa dh fo'oluh;rk lafnX/k
&& foyac rdZiw.kZ Li"Vhdj.k ls Li"V fd;k x;k && lkf{k;ksa ds Hkjksls;ksX; gksus ij lansg ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 26

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 20.6.2019 passed by 21st Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (M.P. & M.L.A.), Bhopal in Special Case (P.P.M.) No. 41/2018 convicting the appellant under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. As per the facts of the case, the controversy arose on the basis of an incident which took place on 24.6.2000 at around 7.30 p.m. wherein the appellant and his brother i.e. Paramjeet Singh went to the Police Station Gohalpur for lodging a report regarding the fact that the truck of one Indu Tiwari bearing Registration No. CIJ 8427 willfully crushed into the car of the appellant bearing Registration No. M.P. 20-5300 with intention of causing grievous hurt to him. As a result, FIR bearing Crime No. 345/2000 was registered against Indu Tiwari and offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him at Police Station Gohalpur, District Jabalpur.

3. The investigation got done under the supervision of Sub Inspector Ram Swaroop Pandre (PW-1) and Indu Tiwari was thereafter arrested by the police but he was released on bail on 27.6.2000 i.e. just after two days from the date of incident.

4. In addition to the above, as per the prosecution, the police received a tip on 27.06.2000 at around 6.00 in the evening that a car bearing Registration No. M.P. 09 N 1113 is parked in front of a warehouse located nearby Krishi Upaj Mandi. The police reached the spot and searched the area and found six persons sitting inside the aforesaid car and after searching the said car, arms were seized from the car and offence under section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against the persons sitting in the car. The car was also seized by the police, which belonged to brother of the appellant.

5. Thereafter, appellant alongwith other persons went to Police Station, Gohalpur to enquire about the incident and registration of offence under section 25 of the Arms Act.

6. As per the prosecution, the appellant got into a heated argument with police officials and alleged that the police are registering a false case at the instance of local MLA just to malign the reputation of the appellant by keeping the weapons in the car and arresting the innocent persons. In the police station, the appellant abused Ram Swaroop Pandre, who is the complainant and lodged the FIR against the appellant, saying that he had given undue favour to Indu Tiwari and as such despite registration of offence under section 307 of IPC against him, he was granted bail only within two days as Shri Pandre after investigation had prepared a very weak case against Indu Tiwari. As per the prosecution, the appellant picked up a stool and tried to assault the complainant (Ram Swaroop Pandre) and also abused him and then FIR got registered against the appellant and offences under sections 294, 448, 506 of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered against him.

7. The police after completing necessary formalities, completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Jabalpur where the Court framed the charges against the appellant. Thereafter, the case was committed for trial to the Court of XXI Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judgek (M.P. & M.L.A.).

8. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty. He did not produced any evidence in his defence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case on account of political rivalry.

9. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove the guilt of appellant.

10. After conducting trial, the trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 20th June, 2019 recorded finding that the prosecution established its case that th