Order On Board

16.08.2022

1. Appellants in this appeal have challenged the legality and sustainability of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.02.2000, passed in Sessions Trial No. 126 of 1999, whereby Additional Sessions/Special Judge, Bilaspur, convicted the appellants No.1 to 4 for offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and convicted the appellants No. 5 to 7 for the offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of the appeal are that Gendram Dirahi, employee of Forest Department, lodged written report in the Police Station Thakhatpur on 24.10.1998 at about 2.00 AM stating therein that he is posted as Assistant Project Ranger, Forest Development Corporation, Kota Pandariya, Project Division Bilaspur, Tendua Range. On 23.10.1998 while returning from patrolling duty in the evening from Tenduwa, when he reached near village – Amlikapa, he saw some persons loading teak wood sleepers on the truck bearing M.P. 26D- 4017. When he tried to take action against them, they abused and assaulted him by means of hands, fists and sticks. They forcefully dragged him to the house of Chutan Satnami and locked him inside. Santosh reached at the place where the complainant was locked and asked about complainant whereupon he was also locked inside by the house by the accused persons. When door was opened after some time by other person, complainant went to Police Station and lodged written report against the accused persons. Based on written report, offence under Sections 342, 353, 332, 379, 294 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Anandi (Appellant No.1), Ramesh (Appellant No.2), Ganesh (Appellant No.3), Shivcharan (Appellant No.4) and others. After completion of investigation, Police submitted charge- sheet against appellants for the commission of offence under Section 342, 353, 333, 379 and 294 of I.P.C.

3. Learned trial Court framed charges under Section 333, 342, 353 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants, which they denied. During course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses namely (P.W.-1) Dr. Smt. Kiran Nahrel, (P.W.-2) Gendram Dirhi (complainant), (P.W.-3) Mansingh Barmate, (P.W.-4) Mohan Lal, (P.W.-5) Santosh, (P.W.-6) Dr. Shekhar Chatterjee, (P.W.-7) N.P. Mishra, S.I. The appellants were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and they denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness was examined in defence. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court upon appreciation of document and oral evidence brought on record by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned here-in-above.

4. Shri Badruddin Khan, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the allegations leveled against the appellants are absolutely false and baseless. The basis on which the appellants were prosecuted i.e. FIR (Ex.P-8), is suspicious. In the FIR it is alleged that when the complainant was returning from patrolling duty, he saw some persons loading teak wood sleepers on truck bearing M.P.-26D-4017 but in that part of FIR, none of the accused persons has been named. The contents of FIR would also show that after that part of the complaint, signature of the complainant is also there, but later on the police has further made some additions in the report made by the complainant, which is an after thought in order to falsely implicate the appellants herein. He also contended that in the FIR there is specific mention of truck but police did not seize any truck, which makes the entire case of the prosecution doubtful.

Seizure witness Mohanlal (P.W.-4) and Santosh (P.W.-5) have not supported the