CF00000612T7 •^ ••^ ^ ^i IN ,THE HIGH COURT ^ OF -MADIiYA ; PRA&ES H^!,%!i^JABAI,3?U' u^^ Criminal . Appe a.1- No« APPELLANTS ^ ^' t 'z-i- ^ -^c yVpa.-t.'v-- h . I, B®S:PONDENT g.'^ .^ ^: ^' /^6-."^-'-j; . 'f l^^-a®»"t^aa^i y» 1. Vishal, S^o Pu^^nL^^S;aMu ^^: ^:'^ ^..^.aged '^ aMout. .'-2:-fc||'e^.rs ^'-; ^ .. •13ir^\';:^'.^'.'''•'•'•...l'\-':'''''.'v .•••.''.'. ^- 'l^::.sS@ji|i:®^^^ -/^:..^. .;,._-....- - : ^. ^3ff%@i^^l®l l::'SalT:€;,:^''-;^^^. :': f^@^^'a.B©:a€:.'19;'' :ye ars 6. .\^^ :::^ -Both ' o£ . -tMem res ides -, ./ . in vi I lage^K:sinbarpur.i.J/^, .,.:Tl^ana ;:l|i.r>una, .••... ^ ' ^Dis-tri^,; s ...Raigarh: '. „.., .^^^ssvs- St ate.^ of ;'Wadhya^ Prades-h;. thro^u:gh'S- ^ 0;o ';';/"' , • • . •; . ;" :'.'' Spec^al.Thana, • •Ralpiir^ . • ., ..-- .;: '. _ :'. (3RIMIKAL APPEXL ; UMI3ER ; SBC. ' 3'7;4 ;G:r<; P.C,. IN^ Sirsgle Banch : Hon'bie Mr. Jystice Prltjnter DlwaNer Crimind Appeal No. 166 of'1996 APPELL4NTS ReSlON&eNT Vishal and another Versys State of Madhya Prodesh Smt, Indira Trjpo.thi, counsei for the appeljants. Shri Vaibhov A. &overdhan,, PL for the State/respondent. Shri SurfarGJ Khan, counsej for the complainants nameiy Devilal, Smt. yasoaa Bai and Smt. Shanti Bai. CRIMINAL APPEAL 374 Of THE CODe.^E JU D@M e NT (21.04.2011) This appeaj is directed against the impugned judgment ond order dated 29.12.1995 passed by Speclal Judge, Raipur in Specia! Co.se No. 100/94 conylcting the Gccused/appeijant for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduied Coste <& Schedujed Tribe (Prevention of Atrocitle-s) Act, 1989 (for short ithe Act') and sente.ncing hlm to undergo rigorous imprJsonment for six month-s. 2. Brief facts of the co.se are thGt on 31.3.1994 a written report (Ex.P-1) wos made by Deviia! (Pvy-1) statjng therein that on 26.3.1994 in between 10-11 am. when his rnother Vashoda Bo.i (PVV-2) and aunt Sh.anti Boi (PW-3) were going to tCurud mGrket, on the way, the accused/Gppe!!ant abused them by using filthy language ond the-y also sald that ffond people would be beaten at the eve of Holi and death of one person woujd be ensured, It is aileged that these abusive words have been heard by Masteram (PW-4) <nd Shrl Ram (PW-5). He has . stated that cfter returning home, the entire incident was disclosed by his mother and ounr to him- Ba^ed on thl^ written raport, INN^ ^ FJ.R. (Ex.P-2) was registered 6n 31,3.1994 against the accused/appeilants under Section 294, 506 IPC and 3(1)(x) of the Act. After compietlon of JnyestigQtion c^ff^/? was filed bythe poiice on 7.6.1994 for the-sGid offences. However, whi!e framing the charge, the triai Court h.os framed the charge oniy under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. 3. In order to estoblish the guilt of the accused/o.ppeilants, the prosecution has examined os many as six wltnesses. Statements of the accused/appe!!o.nts were aiso recorded under Section 313 of the Code of CrimJnaj Procedure in which they denied the charges jevelled ogainst them and pieaded their Innocence and fal.se impJJCGtion in the case. 4. After hearing th.e porties th©trial Court h.as convicted and sentenced the accused/oppeJJGnt for the offence as mentioned above. 5. Heard counse! for the partJeg and perused the moteria! avaiiable on record inciudlng the judgment impugned. 6. Counse! for the Gccused/appeHant submits that during pendency of the apped, accused/appelionts and the compidncBits nameiy Devitei, Smt. Vosoda Bai and Smt, Shanti Bai haye compromised the matter and they have ftted jojnt Qppilcation under Section 320 (2) (5) of the Code of Crim'nal Procedure to this effect. She fairly submit-s th.at as the- offence under Sectlon 3(l)(x) of the Act is not compoundab!e, this appjication cannot be ojjowed but the effect of this appljcatjon can always be consldered. She sjbmits thot incident i.s a!ieged to have taken place on 26.3.1994 whereas written report was iodged on 31.3.1994 ond there is no sGtisfoctory @xp!anation for this inordjnate deloy of 5 days. Sh®submits that as per written report, Deviial (PW-1) was not present at the time of ^s^ /^^ ^ .'"^^ "^:..,;!^ ^ incident, however, whiie deposing in the Court this witness becomes eye witness and has stated that he too was present. In cross- examination, this witness has stated that incident took place on 22.3.1994 whereos os per FJ.R. the incident took place on 26.3.1994. According to the compiainQnt, as per written. report incident was wtnessed by Shrl AA.asteram (PW-4) and Shri Ram (PW-5) whereas in the court this witness has categoricGJiy stated thQt but for him no other witness was present on the spot. She further submits Devilal (PW-1) has further cdmitted th@ fact that there ore two groups in the vl!!age and their relations are not good and, therefore, possibility of false impiicatlon cannot be ru!ed out. She furl'her submits that simijar is the position with the statements of Yashoda Bai (PW-2), Shanti Bai (PW-3) and Masteram (PW-4) ond from the evidence of these three wltnesses it is ciear that there are materiai contraciictions and omjssions in the scme. 7. On the other hand, supportino the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counse! that the Judgment impugned is strictly in accordance wJth law and there is no infirmityin the same. 8. Compialnant Devwj (PW-1) has stated in hls evidence that he is ffondby caste and on the date of Incldent the accused/appellants had abused his mother yo.shoda Bal (PW-2) and aunt Shanti Boi (PW-2). He has stated that at the time of incident, he was also present dong with his mother and o,unt on.d thereofter, a written report (Ex.P-1) WGS 'odged. In the cross-examinotion, he has stated that the incident took place on 22.3.1994 ond the written report was iodged cfter about 5 -6 days l.e. on 31.3.1994. Yash.oda Bai (PW-2) - moth.er of the compldnant has stated in her evidsnce thot on the do.te of Incident when she was goin9 aiong with her ^sster-in-law to Kurud market, ac^u^^d/app^Ilantiss had \ "W^J 4 obused her by using filthy ianguage and they oiso abused their husband. She has further stated that when she returned to her house, she norroted the entire incidsnt to her son Devilaj (PW-1). According to her, incident was not witnessed by anyone as she and her sister-jn-law were ol! ojone at the place of incident. Shcmti Bai (PW-3) has made olmost sjrnijar statement as has been made by Yashoda Bai (PVi/-2). While im.proving in the court statement, she has stated that accused/Gppellants had to!d her that they wili throw her in the fjre whereas r»o such statement has been made by her in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ma.stero.m (PW-4) ~ alJeged eye witness has stated in his evidencs that on th.e dote of incident accused persons have abused Yashoda Bai (PW-2) ond Shanti Bo.i (PW-2), however, as per the statements of the other witnesses; he was not the eye witness to the incident. Shriram (PW-5) is o.lso the so caiied eye witness but his pre-sence ot the p!ace of incident has oiso been denied by the other witnesses. S.I. Agan Singh Netom (PW-6) is the Investigating Officer who has supported the cose of the prosecution. 9. Minute examinatjon of the evidence of the witnesses makes it cieor that the incldent is aijeged to have taken p!oce on 26.3.1994 whereas written report wos iodged on 31.3.1994 and there is no satisfactory explanation for this deioy of 5 days. Evidence also reflects that a.s per written report, Deviial (PW-1) was not present at the time of incident, however, while deposing m the Court this witnsss becomes eye witness ond has stated that he too WQS present at the time of incident. More so, incident took ploce on 22.3.1994 whereas os per F.I.R. the same took plo.ee on 26.3.1994. Furtherm.ore, as per written re-port, incident WQS witnessed by Shri Masteram (PW- 4) and Shri Ram (PW-5) whereas in the court this witness has ^' i:i 1 ^ cotegorically stated that except him no other witness was present. According to the complainant Devilal (PW-1) there are two groups in the viilage and their relations were not good and, therefore, po-ssibility of false impiication cannot be ruled out. The record aiso shows that the accused/appe!!ant and the complainant have moved a Joint appiication for permission to compromise the cose during pendency of the appeai. Thoygh, the offence alieged is not compoundabie in nature, the effect of the said application can be considered as opparentiy the relatlons between both the parties have become cordia!. Thus the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution does not inspire confidence of this court an.d in these circumstances it wi!! not be sofe for thls Court to conyict the accused/o.ppeilonts under Section 3(l)(x) of the Act. • 10. In concjuslon, the apped is dlowed. Impugned judgment dated 29.12.1995 is hereby set Otside. Appellonts are acquitted of the charge leveiied against them. Since appeliants are already on bai!, their baii bonds stand discharged. Pritinker Diwaker Judge /