State of Madhya Pradesh vs Kadeer Khan

N.K. Gupta, J.—The State has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 12.2.2002 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Hoshangabad in Special Case No. 529/2000, whereby the respondent was acquitted of the offences under Section 324 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act (hereinafter it would be referred as the ''Special Act'').

Facts of the case in short are that on 8.9.2000 at about 10:00 p.m. in the night, the complainant Rupesh Kumar (PW-2) was standing in front of his house at village Hinotiya (Police Station Bankhedi, District Hoshangabad). The respondent came out of his house and abused the complainant with the words relating to his caste and assaulted by a knife causing injury on his left wrist. The complainant had lodged the FIR Ex.P/6 at Police Station, Bankhedi and thereafter he was sent for his medico legal examination to the Community Health Centre, Bankhedi, where Dr. Jayant Harne (PW-6) had examined him and gave the report Ex.P/4. He found an incised wound having size 3" x 1" on left wrist of the victim. The injury was in the shape of spindle. After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshangabad, who committed the case to the Special Court.

The respondent abjured his guilt. He took a plea that the complainant was interested to take his land forcefully and therefore, a false report was lodged against him. In defence, Aabda Bi (DW-1) wife of the respondent was examined.

After examining the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court acquitted the respondent from the aforesaid charges.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

If the evidence of Rupesh Kumar (PW-2), Gopal (PW-3), Kamal Prasad (PW-4) and Haridas (PW-5) is considered then, no one has stated that the respondent had insulted the complainant on the basis of his caste. It would be apparent that the complainant has accepted that a contract took place between the complainant and the respondent to sell a land to the complainant but thereafter, the respondent had sold that land to someone else therefore, there was a dispute of return of advance given by the complainant. If the respondent would have hatred with a scheduled caste person then, such contract could not be taken place. The prosecution has failed to prove that the respondent had insulted the complainant on the basis of his caste therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charge of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act.

The witnesses Gopal and Kamal Prasad are relatives of the complainant and they could state in favour of the complainant. Rupesh Kumar and Kamal Prasad have stated that the respondent went to his house and brought a knife and assaulted him in his left hand, whereas Gopal has stated that the respondent took the knife out from his pocket and assaulted the complainant. This is a material contraction between the evidence of eyewitnesses. Though, the FIR was lodged within time but a manipulation is visible in the time of FIR in document Ex.P/7. Initially, the report was registered in Roznamchasanah Ex.P/6 at 11:00 p.m. and therefore, it appears that the report was lodged within one hour. Major defence brought on the record was a difference between the injury caused to the victim as told by the witnesses and injury found by Dr. Jayant Harne (PW-6) in his report. If the respondent had assaulted the victim by a knife then, a simple linear incised wound or a stab wound could be caused. Dr. Harne found that wound was in the shape of spindle and therefore, it could not be caused by a simple knife. He has accepted that if the arm would have dashed with the frame of door then, due to sharp edges, such spindle shaped wound could be caused.

The complainant Rupesh Kumar has accepted that there was a dispute between him and the respondent relating to purchase of property. He went to purchase the property at main road and when it was not given to him, he has shown that his advance was not returned, whereas Aabda Bi (DW-1) has stated that the complainant did not give any advance to her husband and there was a enmity between the parties.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion, due to enmity, it appears that a doubt is created in the prosecution''s case that the respondent was falsely implicated in the matter, otherwise by simple assault of knife, no such spindle shaped injury could be caused. When a doubt is created then, benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charge of offence under Section 324 of the IPC.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion, there is no basis to accept the present appeal filed by the State. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed.

The respondent is on bail. His presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds etc. shall stand discharged.

Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.