Harigopal Katiya vs Jagdish Prasad

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard on admission. The appellant has preferred the present appeal u/s 372 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 14.9.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Hoshangabad in Special case No. 65/2011, whereby the respondents No. 1 to 4 were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 323 or 323 read with Section 34, 341, 294, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as ''Special Act'').

The prosecution''s case, in short, is that, on 4.2.2011, at about 7 a.m. in the morning, at village Chargaon, the victim Harigopal (P.W. 1) was going to answer his call of nature. When he was on the way, in front of house of the respondent Jagdish, the respondents assaulted him by slaps. They scuffled with the complainant and thereafter, the respondent Maan Singh assaulted him by a stick on his left thigh. His father Nathuram (P.W. 2), mother Munni Bai (P.W. 4), brother-in-law Devkaran and others saved him. The victim was sent for his medico legal examination to Government Hospital, Bankhedi. Dr. Pushpa Chandel (P.W. 7) examined the victim Harigopal and gave her report, Ex. P/9. She found one contusion on the back portion of left thigh of the victim. Thereafter, a case was registered on 7.3.2011 and after due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and case was committed to the Special Court.

The respondents abjured their guilt. They took a plea that they were falsely implicated in the matter because there was a dispute of some land with the complainant and his father.

The learned Special Judge, after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, acquitted the respondents from all the charges.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, if the evidence adduced by the prosecution is considered then, it would be apparent that no caste certificate of the complainant was proved before the trial Court and it was not proved that the complainant was a member of Schedule caste or Schedule tribe. Also, according to the allegation made in the Rojnamacha, Ex. P/8, it would be apparent that the complainant did not mention any reason as to why the quarrel initiated. He has accepted in his cross-examination that there was a dispute between the parties relating to some land. He did not make any allegation in the FIR that the respondents No. 1 to 4 had stated anything about his caste and therefore, the learned Special Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents No. 1 to 4 from the charges of offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Special Act.

Similarly, the complainant Harigopal (P.W. 1) and the witnesses Nathuram (P.W. 2) and Munni Bai (P.W. 4) did not say anything about the words spoken by the respondents. No allegation is made that any particular obscene word was told by any of the respondents and therefore, without informing about the words, it could not said that the respondents had spoken any obscene words. Consequently, the learned Special Judge has committed no error in acquitting the respondent from the charges of offence punishable u/s 294 of IPC.

According to the submissions of the complainant Harigopal, Nathuram and Munni Bai, it would be apparent that they told about the story of threat given by the respondents in the night at about 8 p.m. and that is a different incident. It was not alleged in the FIR, Ex. P/8 that any threat was given by the respondents at the time of the incident and therefore, no offence punishable u/s 506 of IPC was constituted against the respondents in the present incident. The learned Special Judge has committed no error in acquitting the respondents from the charges of offence punishable u/s 506 of IPC.

Similarly, as per allegation, the complainant was going to answer the call of nature and the quarrel started. There was no intention of the respondents to restrain the complainant to go in a particular direction. Under such circumstances, no offence punishable u/s 341 of IPC is made out against the respondents. The learned Special Judge has committed no error in acquitting the respondents from the charges of offence punishable u/s 341 of IPC.

So far as the assault is concerned, there is a lot of contradiction between the statements of the witnesses Harigopal (P.W. 1), Nathuram (P.W. 2) and Munni Bai (P.W. 4), whereas the independent eye witness Chandrabhan (P.W. 3) has turned hostile. According to the complainant Harigopal and the witness Nathuram, remaining respondents assaulted the victim by slaps and thereafter, the respondent Maan Singh assaulted the victim by a stick, causing injury on his left thigh, whereas the witness Munni Bai has accepted that Maan Singh went from the back of the complainant and assaulted him by a stick. She has accepted that at the time of the incident, all the respondents were present at the spot. If the medical report of the victim, Ex. P/9 proved by Dr. Pushpa Chandel (P.W. 7) is considered then, it would be apparent that injury was found on the back side of the left thigh of the victim Harigopal. Under such circumstances, the statement of the witness Munni Bai relating to conduct of remaining respondents appears to be acceptable and therefore, it appears that Harigopal and Nathuram has stated a falsehood against the respondents Jagdish Prasad, Madan Lal and Ram Swaroop. They did not participate in the crime of assault and therefore, the learned Special Judge has rightly acquitted these respondents from the charges of offence punishable u/s 323 or 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.

So far as the crime of the respondent Maan Singh is concerned, FIR was lodged with some delay. FIR, Ex. P/8 is lodged at about 8.30 a.m. in the morning, whereas incident took place at about 7 a.m. in the morning and according to the document, Ex. P/1, the police station was hardly 8 kms. away from the spot. It would be apparent from the statement of Munni Bai that only Maan Singh assaulted the victim on back side but, in FIR Ex. P/8, the complainant had stated against 3-4 persons, without any reason. The complainant Harigopal did not tell the names of any independent witnesses except Chandrabhan (P.W. 3), whereas name of Chandrabhan was not shown in the FIR, Ex. P/8. It is brought on the record that there were houses of so many persons like Arjun, Khemchand, Pyarelal etc. If the incident took place at an open road then, after hearing the noise, they should have come at the spot and they could say that they saw the incident or they saw the respondents running from the spot but, it appears that the complainant did not quote the names of persons, who are residents of near places. The house of the complainant are far away from the spot and therefore, there was no possibility of arrival of his father and mother. Nathuram, father of the complainant has stated that he was coming back after answering the call of nature and he was behind his son Harigopal, whereas Harigopal has stated that he was going to answer the call of nature and after hearing his cries, his father and mother came to the spot. On the contrary, Munni Bai has stated that after hearing the noise, she went to the spot and her husband was coming behind her. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that no incident was seen by either Nathuram or Munni Bai. They were made witnesses by Harigopal and therefore, the learned Special Judge has rightly disbelieved the testimony of Nathuram and Munni Bai.

Under such circumstances, where Harigopal has lodged an FIR with some delay and he did not quote the names of persons, who were the residents nearby the spot, where the incident took place then, it appears that Harigopal sustained injury due to any other reason or at any other place and thereafter, due to dispute of land, the respondents were falsely implicated in the matter. When he could implicate other persons except Maan Singh in a false manner then, he could also implicate Maan Singh in such a manner and therefore, the testimony of the complainant cannot be believed. Under such circumstances, a doubt is created that whether it is the respondent Maan Singh, who assaulted the victim Harigopal or not. If any doubt is created then, benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused. The learned Special Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent Maan Singh from the charges of offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, there is no reason to make any interference in the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge and therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant cannot be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.