Amolak Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupata, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant has challenged the order dated 29.2.2012 passed by the JMFC, Chhindwara in criminal case No. 2669/2011, whereby the charges of offence punishable u/s 120-B of IPC were framed against the applicant.

The prosecution''s case, in short, is that, Adani Power Project was to be implemented in the area alongwith Pench Vyapavartan Yojana and therefore, some agriculturists have moved a rally against that project. On 22.5.2011, at about 5 p.m., a meeting was called at village Bhula Mohgaon, in which the complainant Aradhana Bhargava and Dr. Sunilam also participated. After that meeting they were coming back to Chhindwara by a vehicle. Near village Ner, they were stopped by the crowd, who came in two vehicles led by Poornima Verma and Nikki Jain. Those 10-15 persons assaulted the complainant Aradhna Bhargava and Dr. Sunilam and also caused damage to their vehicle. They also quoted that they were sent by the applicant Amolak Singh, who was the office bearer in Adani Groups of Companies at Chhindwara. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.

The learned JMFC, after considering the prosecution''s evidence, framed the charge of section 120-B of IPC against the applicant.

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was no evidence in the trial Court to show that the applicant was involved in any conspiracy. There is only evidence given by the co-accused persons that they were sent by the applicant. The learned Senior Advocate has placed his reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon''ble the Apex Court in case of Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam Vs. State of Bihar, to show that according to section 30 of the Evidence Act, confession of a co-accused is not a substantial evidence. It is also submitted that the applicant never met with the complainant and therefore, there was no evidence to show that the applicant was involved in the conspiracy. The learned senior advocate also referred the various judgments passed by Hon''ble the Apex Court in cases of Girja Shankar Misra and Nathu Singh Vs. State of U.P., , V.C. Shukla and Others Vs. State (Delhi Administration), ] and P.K. Narayanan Vs. State of Kerala, Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be discharged from the aforesaid charges.

On the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the statement of the co-accused persons was not a confession in the present case. They told to the victims that they were sent by the applicant and thereafter, they assaulted them. Except of circumstantial suspicion, there are two circumstances, which go against the applicant. Firstly, that there was no motive with the other co-accused persons to assault the complainant Aradhana Bhargava and Dr. Sunilam. Secondly, there was grievance with various meetings to the applicant only because, it was affecting his project and therefore, after considering these two circumstances, it is apparent that the other co-accused persons were sent by the applicant to assault the complainant and Dr. Sunilam. It is further submitted that the other accused persons were not inimical to the complainant and Dr. Sunilam and therefore, it is prima facie apparent that they were sent by someone and if they admitted before the witnesses that they were sent by the applicant then, it is a matter of evidence. At present, it cannot be said that there is no evidence against the applicant.

After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that there was no enmity between the victims and other accused persons. The applicant was the person, who had a motive against the victims and therefore, these two circumstances, go against the applicant. In case of Haricharan Kurmi (supra) Hon''ble the Apex Court has laid that such type of confession given by the co-accused persons cannot be treated as a substantial evidence but, it could be treated as one of the circumstances. Similarly, in case of P.K. Narayanan (supra), it is laid that only by motive and preparation, offence of conspiracy does not constitute. In case of V.C. Shukla (supra), it is laid that offence of criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. In case of Girjashankar Mishra (supra), Hon''ble the Apex Court emphasized the entire evidence in a criminal appeal, whereas in the present case, evidence is yet to be laid by the prosecution.

At present, prima facie, it is apparent that due to meetings between the agriculturists and the complainant, the scheme of the applicant could come in the clouds and therefore, there was motive with the applicant, so that the complainant and Dr. Sunilam may not be permitted to contact with the agriculturists. It is also clear from the record that other co-accused persons did not have any enmity with the victims and there was no need for them to assault the victims and they have stated before the victims that they were being sent by the applicant. If all such circumstances are considered simultaneously then, it cannot be said that no offence of conspiracy is made out against the applicant or there is no evidence to implicate him for offence punishable u/s 120-B of IPC.

At this stage, appreciation of evidence is not required to be done and therefore, by considering the evidence collected by the prosecution, there is no ground by which the petition u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant can be accepted.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the petition u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed.

However, it is directed that the reasons assigned in the order shall not cause any prejudice to the applicant before the trial Court.

The trial Court shall proceed according to the law and take the decision on the basis of the evidence produced before it.

Interim order dated 8.2.2013 is hereby vacated. A copy of the order be sent to the Court of JMFC, Chhindwara with the direction that the trial Court shall proceed with the criminal case No. 2669/2011.