Full Judgment
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.155 OF 199.APPELLANT: State of Madhya Pradesh through P.S. Mohangarh, District Tikamgarh (MP) Versus RESPONDENT: Nathuram S/o Butte Ahirwar, aged 30 years, R/o Village Badha, P.S. Mohangarh, District Tikamgarh (MP) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant/State : Ms. Savita Choudhary, Panel Lawyer For the Respondent : Shri R.K. Khare, Advocate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing : . .2013 Date of judgment :
18. 06.2013 (
JUDGMENT
) By means of filing the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the State has assailed the order of acquittal passed by the learned First Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tikamgarh (MP) in Criminal Case No.945/93 decided on 12.08.1997.
2. By the judgment under challenge, learned trial judge acquitted the accused Nathuram from the charges of offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. To appreciate the say of the appellant State, I would like to say that basic case that was placed before the trial Court in nutshell is that on dated 05.12.1992 at 6:00 a.m. (learned trial Court wrongly mentioned the time 12:10 p.m. in the charge- sheet), accused Nathuram after some scuffle abused complainant Rajkobai and twisted her hand therefore, she got injury. Rojnamcha Sanha report Ex.P/8 scribed by Head Constable Fakruddin (PW-8) at Police Station Mohangarh, on basis, of which Investigating Officer, Shri Asharam Gautam (PW-5) recorded First Information Report Ex.P/3, and went to spot, prepared map, also recorded statements of the witnesses, sent Rajkobai for medical check-up Dr. D.R. Kulhadiya (PW-6) examined her and after completing due investigation challan was filed against the accused.
4. Learned trial Court framed charge punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused who abjured his guilt; therefore, he was put to trial.
5. During the trial, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents.
6. During the statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the accused denied all the evidence put up against him and pleaded his innocence.
7. Learned trial judge appreciating the evidence on record and mainly on the ground that there are contradictions, omissions in evidence of prosecution witnesses, therefore evidence of these witnesses found unreliable.
8. Ms. Savita Choudhary, Panel Lawyer for the State has taken through the entire judgment and main grounds of challenge mentioned in the memo of appeal and have pointed out error that has allegedly at the time of recording of the finding of acquittal by the learned trial Court. One of the big bones of submissions of Ms. Choudhary before me is that the learned trial judge has not applied his mind when appreciating the evidence of injured Rajkobai (PW-2), eyewitness Lalaram (PW-3) and Malori (PW-4) that accused Nathuram is the author of the grievous injury caused on the hand of complainant Rajkobai.
9. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the State and having gone through entire record, I find myself in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned trial judge on the reasons mentioned below.
10. It is pertinent to mention here as per the Rojnamcha Sanha report Ex.P/8, the basis of First Information Report Ex.P/3, which were exhibited by Shri Fakrudin (PW-8) and Shri Gautam (PW-5) respectively, the time of incident is mentioned 6:00 early morning. Rajkobai (PW-2) stated the same time but, as per Lalaram (PW-3) it was 8:00 a.m. and Malori (PW-4) is stetting that it was 12:00 a.m. This variance regarding time of the incident between prosecution witnesses creating doubt without any justified explanation.
11. Spot Map Ex.P/2 was prepared by Shri Gautam (PW-5) in presence of Lalaram (PW-3) and Malori (PW-4) as per instructions given by Rajkobai (PW-2) in which place of incident was mentioned by “X”. in front of house of Rajkobai and between the Road. But, as per statement of Rajkobai (PW-2) accused given him blow in her courtyard. During cross examination she denied this fact that place of incident is about half fourlang away from her house. Malori (PW-4) said that incident happened near to house of Rajkobai but, further he admits that dispute was happened near to Talaiya. Eyewitness Vishwanath (PW-1) though not supported the case of prosecution therefore, was declared hostile but, prior to declaring him as hostile eyewitness Vishwanath (PW-1) also stated that he heard that scuffle between Nathuram and his sister-in-law Rajkobai happened at Talaiya, therefore, he went to Talaiya. This contradiction regarding place of incident is also against the prosecution story.
12. The prosecution witnesses Lalaram (PW-3) and Malori (PW-4) and defence witness Jamuna Prasad (DW-1) admitted that the reason of scuffle between Rajkobai and the accused was report of theft of Hen.
13. In the light of above facts and circumstances, further appreciation of statements of prosecution witnesses given in the trial Court are totally contradictory as to the case of prosecution mentioned in its own documents.
14. It is pertinent to mention here that as per statement of Dr. Kulhadiya (PW-6), Dr. R.S. Raghuvanshi (PW-7) and vide their respective reports Ex.P/5, P/7, it is proved that there was one contusion found on the right hand's wrist of Rajkobai which was caused by hard and blunt object and fractured were found.
15. (i) As per details of Rojnamcha Sanha Ex.P/8 and First Information Report Ex.P/3 that the injury caused by the accused by twisting her hand. (ii) But, Rajkobai (PW-2) did not supported her own version of twisting her wrist. She stated altogether contradictory story in these words that after abusing her accused given a stick blow on her hand after X-ray it was found that there was a crack in her hands bone. (iii) Lalaram (PW-3) and Malori (PW-4) also turned from their police statement versions saying that this injury was caused by accused to Rajkobai by given blow of stick to her.
16. For the sake of arguments, if above fact deemed to be true that the accused given stick blow to Rajkobai (PW-2), then it was duty of the Investigating Officer to seize that stick but, it is very much lacking in this case. The above discussed contradictory versions of the witnesses basis of grave doubt which is fatal for the prosecution.
17. In above facts and circumstances learned trial Court rightly found the evidence of Rajkobai (PW-2), Lalaram (PW-3) and Malori (PW-4) unreliable, therefore, there is no cause to interfere in the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court.
18. The appeal preferred by the State against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12.08.1997 liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. (SUBHASH KAKADE) JUDGE AK/-