JUDGMENT

1. This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the appellant being crestfallen by the judgment dated 13.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sendhwa, District-Barwani (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No. 139/2016 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 148, 332/149 & 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo 2 years R.I., 3 years R.I. and 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,000/- & Rs.1,000/- and usual default stipulation.

2. As per the prosecution story, on 11.9.2016, present appellants assembled all together before the police station and shown their agitation and anger by sloganeering and shouting against the order of banning the use of DJ in Ganesh Utsav procession. When force tried to intervene and attempted to keep them back, it was alleged that crowd did not allow them to do so and present appellants threw stones over them. Thereafter, Crime No. 180/2016 was registered under sections 147, 148, 353, 332 & 506 of IPC against all accused and final report was submitted.

3. The police party, following due procedure, arrested the appellants, registered the case against them. After necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants under sections 147, 148, 353, 332 & 506 of IPC. In turn, learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges under sections 352/149, 332, 333/149, 506 (Part-II), 147 and 148 of IPC and section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and recorded the plea of appellants, wherein they had denied the charges and prayed for trial.

4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses namely Vinod Meena, Head Constable (PW-1), Shivkumar, Constable (PW-2), Rameshsingh Chouhan, Head Constable (PW3), Duasingh (PW-4), Surya Panwar (PW-5), Biharilal Sen (P.W.-6), Sanjay Mori, Constable (PW-7), Dr. P.D. Chouha, Medical Officer (PW-8), R.S. Singod (PW-9), Bhupendra Singh, Head Constable (PW-10) & R.C. Chouhan, A.S.I. (PW-11). No witness has been examined in support of the defence. The appellants abjured their guilt and they took a plea that they are innocent.

5. After appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, trial Court by the impugned judgment found guilt to the appellants and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment.

6. The appellants have preferred this criminal appeal on several grounds and submitted that they had not done anything wrong but prosecution witnesses have narrated false story against them. All of the witnesses are police personnel and their statements are full of contradictions and omissions. No independent witness has been furnished by the prosecution agency. There is unexplained inordinate delay in sending the copy of the FIR to the Magistrate as required under section 157 of Cr.P.C. which makes every possible chance of manipulation in the FIR by roping innocent persons as an accused, which exactly happened in this case and therefore, this lacuna is sufficient for throwing out the entire prosecution case being fabricated. The learned trial Court has erred by not considering the facts that few appellants (apppellant Nos. 11 to 17) have not been named in the FIR and later on they have been named without attributing any specific role to them in the evidence that was adduced during the trial, which cast a cloud over the truthfulness of the prosecution story. The prosecution has produced two articles of CD 'A' & 'B' but without compliance with section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872, they are not admissible. As such prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, hence, the appellants are liable to be acquitted.

7. On the other hand learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has supported the conviction and senten