Jagtamba Devi vs Hem Raj and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—Present Criminal Revision Petition filed under the provisions of Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises out of order dated 1.8.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (I), Palampur Distt. Kangra in Criminal Complaint No. 98-II/2004 titled as Jagtamba Devi vs. Hem Raj & Others. On 21.2.2004, petitioner Jagtamba Devi filed private complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Palampur. The same was registered as Criminal Complaint No. 98-II/2004. As per the averments made in the complaint, complainant was working as Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Poda, Mouja Garh, Tehsil Palampur. Grant for construction of certain public works was received by the Panchayat. The accused persons, namely, Hem Raj, Swaroop Chand, Kamlesh, Bhuri Singh and Kartar Chand were pressing upon the complainant to construct a motorable road upto their houses. Complainant refused for the same, as it would have amounted to mis-utilization of funds. On 13.10.2003, while construction work in relation to another path was going on, the accused persons came and obstructed the same and at about 4.30 p.m. they abused and threatened her. They pushed the complainant, as a result of which, she got hurt. The accused deterred the public servant from discharging her duty. The incident was witnessed by S/Sh. Bihari Lal, Sudhir Kumar, Rajinder Singh, Sanjay Kumar and other persons. Resolution dated 22.10.2003, pertaining to the incident, was passed by the Panchayat and sent to the police. Since no action was taken, hence private complaint was filed.

In order to establish its case, complainant examined herself as CW-1, Sh. Bihari Lal (CW-2), Sh. Rajinder Singh (CW-3) and Sh. Sanjay Kumar (CW-4). The trial Court dismissed the complaint, as the complainant was not able to establish her case.

In my considered view, in the instant case, no interference is warranted. The trial Court has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence so led by the complainant. Reasoning adopted by the Court below cannot be said to be perverse. Also it cannot be said that the trial Court mis-directed itself or mis-appreciated the testimonies of the relevant witnesses which has resulted into travesty of justice. It be only observed that the police did not register any FIR. Also the Panchayat did not pursue the matter after passing of the resolution dated 22.10.2003. The Magistrate also did not exercise his power under the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The witnesses have given totally different version in the Court. Apart from the fact that the police did not find any case against the accused persons, even the Panchayat did not pursue the matter any further. There is no reasonable explanation for the complainant not to have approached the authorities for registration of the FIR in relation to the offence in question. Significantly, it has come on record that proceedings were initiated by the Tehsildar under the provisions of Cr.P.C. Now if the complainant had been pursuing such proceedings, at the first instance, had there been any truth in the complicity of the accused in relation to the offence in question, the complainant could have directly lodged the complaint with the police, as it has nowhere come in evidence that the police official(s) refused to register such FIR or accept any complaint. Further, the complainant has admitted that in the resolution sent by the Panchayat, only two persons i.e. accused Hem Raj and accused Swaroop Chand were named. Hence, there is no explanation by the complainant as to why names of other accused persons were left out. This fact probabilises the defence taken by the accused that they have been falsely implicated in the case.

Coming to the testimonies of the witnesses, I find that there are inherent contradictions, which absolutely render the version of the complainant to be unbelievable, if not false. Her testimony is absolutely shaky. It cannot be said that the complainant has deposed the whole truth or that her version is corroborated by the witnesses so examined by her. In the complaint, petitioner has disclosed the time of the occurrence of the incident to be 4.30 p.m., whereas in the Court, she states that the accused persons had come twice to stop the work. Firstly, they came at 3.00 p.m. and the second time they came at about 4.30 p.m. Qua both these incidents, the witnesses have given different versions with regard to the presence and the alleged acts attributable to each one of the accused persons. Significantly, the complainant has not disclosed name of Sanjay Kumar to be present on the spot. Hence, this witness appears to have been introduced subsequently and his testimony is more in the nature of hearsay. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, it cannot be said that the complainant has been able to establish her case beyond reasonable doubt and, as such, keeping in view the principles laid down in Md. Ankoos and Others Vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present criminal revision petition is dismissed.