‘' .V . " H ~ “WW §§‘ HIG ‘CwT OF JUDICATURE JABAL Cr1.A"ppeél No. \\*‘<‘Q /96 Lekai Saba s61; of Tularafn Sau - h ‘é / A (5n eant: Eail i aged 2 1 ’yearsyz’sident of village Tulsi, Police Station Sigma ‘“ Dist. Raipurr (ALP) Versus State of Madhya Pradeshg“ Rescndent : p APPLICAION UNDER SEcncN 374(2) aF THE Gen 6F CRIMINA PRocEDUR'B 1973. W _7§ § H PURWN’ ll‘ T a L "L HIGH COUPT OF bHHAWS€A§H AT BI ADPUR Smgie 8ench . Hem me Mr. Jusflce PMmker Diwaker' Crimimi Appea! Na. 1178 of 1996 APPELLANT Lckai Sahu, s/o Tuéamm Sam Vasus RESPONDENT The SfaTe of Madhya Pradesh (now cs) Shri Adiirya ”:“iwari, counsei for fhe appeiiam. Shré/Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, PL for The STa‘te/r‘espondem. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTIGN 3H g2) O’r' THE CGDE Q? CREé¢iiNAL FEOISEDURE 5U DéEAAENT (i9.@4.2011§ This appeal is directed against j‘ha imgugrzed Judgmant Grad order dared 8.7.1996 passed by Speciai Judge, Qaipur in Sgecia! ‘Crimi’nd Case No’ 264/96 convictiog The occused/oppe§iam for We offences punishabée unde? Secfs'on 2950f f'ne Indian Pam Code anti 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Cas’rgs & Scheduied Tribe (:3reven%ion of Afroci'ries) Ac? (fer show “The Ac’r’? and sentencing him *0 undergc rigorous imprisonment for six months u/S 295 EPC. and rigorous 'imprisonmenf for six mom'hs and pay fs‘ns of QsEOO u/S 3 (1)00 of The Act Bo’rh we szm‘enczs were ordered w run concurrem‘ly. 2. Facfs of fhe case in brief are feat wrm‘en report (Ex.P-1) (un- dm‘ed) was made ey compiaénanif Laxmimmycm (Wf-i) snoing fhereii“: :H’m on 41199é or; fhe eve of (Euru Ghashidas Jayanti accused pewsans have swwched o f +he nah? and htxve Thrown The K/macfi powder’,‘as a resui? of which number of persons were injured. If §s furfher alieged z‘hair when fhe accused persons were asked no? +0 do Me said or? ‘rhey no? any ’rrreo‘l‘ened we compiamom‘ and m‘her persons bu+ haze aiso owed from “Chamar' This wrIHen reporf @ (EXP-1) was received. by The poiice on 711996 and ba$ec§ on this wr’i‘Hen repar‘f, EIR. (un—exhibi‘red) dm‘ed 12.2.199$ was regis‘rer'ed againsi Three accused persons inciuding the accused/apneHom under Seci'icn 298 I?C‘cmd Sec’vion 3(1)(x) cn.‘ fhe Act Affer campiefian of invesfigcn‘ion, ckak’an was fiied on 29.2.1996 agains’r ‘H’Ie accused persons nameiy Lokai Sahu, Tulomm Sahu and Sahasmm Sohu under Sec‘rion 298 193C and Sem‘ion 3(1)(x) of The Act However, fhe Cour? beiow framed The charges agains'r all ”the Three accueed persons under Sections 295 IPC and Sec’rion 3(1) (x) of The Act 3. Sa as 1‘0 hold The accused persons guilTy, pmsecuTion has examined as many as Three wi’messes in supporT 0T” iTs case. STaTemenTs 0f The accused/appelian‘fs were also receréed under SecT§on 313 of The Code of Criménai Procedure in which They denied The charges levelled against Them and pieaded Their innocence and faTse impHcaTion in The case. 4. AfTer hearing The parTies The Triai CourT has acquTTTed The Two accused persons namely Tularam and Sahasram whereas The appelTanT has been convicTed and senTence as menTloned above in paragraph 1 of The jndgmem‘. 5. Counsel for The appellanT submiTs ThaT There is inordinaTe delay of 33 days in making The wriTTen reporT and The said delay has noT been saTisfacTorily explained by The prosecuTion. He submiTs ThaT on accounT of village paliTics The accused/appellanT has been falsely impiicaTedi He furTher submiTs ThaT There is, no documenTary evidence on record To show The casTe of The complainanT which is sine qua none for bringing home The offence under The provisions of The Speciai ACT. He also submiTs ThaT once The casTe of The compiainam‘ has been dispuTed by The accused/appellanT in absence of any documenTary evidence in relaTion To The casTe of The complainanT, he ”QM @ cannof be convécfed under The pmviséan 9f fhe Sgeciai ACT. Ef has been argued fha’r There is n?) evidence on recar‘d 1a shcw “rhaf k/mach powder (which causes severe aching) was Thrown by me accused/appe-Han? because n0 seizure whmfscever has been made f0 fhis effecf and mare 50 were was m §ighf m“ me piece ef imcidem‘. If has aisa beerg argued The”; Inves?iga?ian Officer has not been examined and even The first informmien vapor? has no? been preved by fne presecu‘tion. 6. On fhe when hand, supportmg The impugned judgmen? if has been argued by The Sfm‘e cgunse! the? The Judgment impugned is stricTly in accerdance with iaw and There is na infirmia‘y in the same 7‘ I have heard caunsei fer the parfies and eerused ihe mm‘eriai avaiiabie an recerd inciuding judgmeni impugned: 8f Compidinan? Lqxmindmyan {PW-1} has sici‘ied in his evidence trim“ on 4.119% m‘ ihe eve Of funciien of {5uru Ghashidas Jayarni, accused persons have switiched eff the iigh‘i and have ihrown 'ihe Ki'mac/i powder, as a resuii Gi: whieh number 0f persons were injured. IT is aiieged The? when 'ihe accused perscns were asked no? ”m do ihe said actihey no? only ‘ihreai'ened The compiainan’r and oTher persans buT have also coiled Them ‘Z‘hamar", Zn cross—examinaTion he has sTaTed ThaT he is‘noT aware as To who had swiTched off The iighTs. He has sTaTed ThaT The accused/appeiianT had broughT The said K/Mac/i powder in a piasTic bag and afTer Throwing The powder he iefT The said bag‘ He has sTaTed ThaT The wriTTen reporT (EXP—1) was prepared by him afTer consuiTing wiTh one Baba Dhaniram (PW—3) and he couid noT Teii as To afTer how many days of The incidenT The said wriTTen reporT was prepared. He has furTher sTaTed ThaT he has sTudied up To 2’” ‘sTandard and he can puT hisusignaTure. He has furTher admiTTed @ The fad Tha‘? The wrifrtan report was Iodged at The msmnce of Babe Dhanir'am (PW-3). Gaya Bqi (PW—2) has made aimosf simiiar‘ sfm‘emen‘r as ’xias been made by her- husband Laxmmqmyan (PW—1), Dhanir'am (PW-3) has sided in his evidence ’rha‘r he reached The pkxce 0f ineidenf after The ae’ruai oceurre‘nce and he was infermed by ’rhe persons over There fha? if is #he accused/appe!!anf who had fhmwn The kimach pcwder'. ‘ 9. Admiffed!y, The Invesiigm‘ing Officer has m? been examined nor The firs? infcrma‘rien report has been preved by fhe prosecu‘fion buf for Laxminar'ayan (PW—1) and Gaye Bai (PW-2) no ether independem‘ wi‘mess has been examined by fhe pmsecuhon. Thaf apart there is no documentary evidence an record to show The caste 0f The complainant which is sine qua non far bringing home The offence under The pravisions of The Speciai AcT especiaiiy when The casTe of The campiainan‘r has been disputed‘by The accused/appeilanT. MosT imparTanTiy, There is no saTisfacTorily expianaTion abouT The inordinaTe delay of 33 days in making The wriTTen reporT. In Theee (« circumsTances where The prosecuTion has faiied To prove iTs case by adducing any cogenT and clinching evidence’ The henefiT of doubT has To go in favour of The accused/appeiianT. 10. In The resuiT, The appeai is allowed. Impugned judgmenT daTed 8.7.1996 convicTing and senTencing The accused/appellanT is seT aside. He is acquiTTed of The charges levelled ogainsT him. As The appellanT is on bail, his bail bonds sTand discharged. Sd/u Pritinker Diwaker Judge if: ' , "l i l