CRA/1695/2005 of SAHAB SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023

ORDER

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01/08/2005passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, Distt. Sagar, in S.T. No.374/2002, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offence underSection 195 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year. In STNo.128/1995 (State Vs. Phool Singh and eight others) before Fourth AdditionalSessions Judge, Sagar, it was found that appellants Sahab Singh, Harpal Singhand Babu Singh have fabricated false evidence against Raghunath Singh, BhanuPratap Singh, Halke Bhaiya and Dashrath Singh and they have assaulted them. Itwas found that the appellant has given false evidence in ST. No.128/1998 and in ST No. 14/1997. On complaint lodged by First Additional Sessions Judge,Sagar, the case was registered in the Court of CJM and on committal, it wasreceived for trial and vide impugned judgment, appellant has been convictedand sentenced as mentioned herein above.

2. The grounds raised in the present appeal are that the impugnedjudgment is bad in law and procedure as it is based upon conjectures andsurmises and not upon any evidentiary material on record. It was not provedby prosecution that appellant gave any false evidence with intent to procureconviction. Further, there was material contradiction, omission andimprovement in the statements of witnesses. Proper procedure was notfollowed in registration of complaint against the appellant and the prosecutionhas failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, prayedthat the appeal should be allowed and the appellant be acquitted.

3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the present appeal for thereason that the impugned judgment is based upon reasoned facts and cannot beinterfered with.

4. Both the parties have been heard and the record has been perused.

5. It is not in dispute that the appellant Harpal Singh and appellant BabuSingh both brothers of the present appellant have been acquitted vide judgmentdated 26.12.2023 passed in Cr.A. No. 1693/2005 and vide judgment dated13.12.2023 passed in Cr.A.No. 1694/2005. The judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench in Cr.A. No. 1694/2005 read as under:

"Brief facts of the prosecution case are that Crime No.45/94 was registered at Police Station Baraitha.

After the completion of investigation the charge-sheet

was filed against Phool Singh and eight others and S.T.No.128/1995 was registered. In that case all the injuredpersons including the present appellant Babu Singhwere declared as hostile witnesses and a judgment ofacquittal was passed. Later, one of the abscondedaccused Raghuveer Singh was traced and arrested andan application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved bythe prosecution. This application was allowed andbesides Raghuveer Singh, 4 more persons were arrayedas newly added accused and were directed to be tried forthe same offence. A new Session Trial No.14/1997 wasregistered and the trial of newly added accusedalongwith Raghuveer Singh was held. In this newsessions trial the statements of injured persons includingthat of present appellant Babu Singh were againrecorded and the judgment of acquittal was passed on31.01.1998. The court, while passing the judgment,gave the opinion that the present appellant Babu Singhand other two witnesses Harpal Singh and Sahab Singhturned hostile and deliberately gave false evidence inboth the sessions cases namely S.T. No.128/95 and14/97, therefore, it was directed that all the threepersons namely Babu Singh, Harpal Singh and SahabSingh should be tried for the offence of Section 193 and195 of IPC. The Presiding Judge filed a complaintbefore the CJM, Sagar, which resulted in trial of appellant for the said offence in S.T. No.372/2002 andhis conviction as well as sentence.

3. The grounds raised in the present appeal are thatthe impugned judgment is bad in law and procedure asit is based upon conjectures and surmises and not uponany evidentiary material on record. It was not proved byprosecution that appellant gave any false evidence withintent to procure conviction. Further, there was materialcontradiction, omission and improvement in thestatements of witnesses. Proper procedure was notfollowed in registration of complaint against theappellant and the prosecution has failed to prove its casebeyond reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, prayed thatthe appeal should be allowed and the appellant beacquitted.

4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed thepresent appeal for the reason that the impugnedjudgment is based upon reasoned facts and cannot beinterfered with.

5. Both the parties have been heard and the recordhas been perused.has been perused.

6. Record of the trial Court reveals that only onewitness was examined before it and he is the RecordKeeper B.P. Sharma (PW1), who was working undercomplainant Surendra Tiwari, First Additional Sessions

Judge, Sagar, who had directed that a complaint beregistered against the appellant. The complaint whichwas registered against the appellant was Ex.P1. Ex.P2is the judgment passed by Shri Surendra Tiwari (FirstAdditional Sessions Judge, Sagar) in S.T. No.14/1997,whereby registration of complaint was directed. Ex.P3and P4 are the copies of the statements of appellantrecorded in S.T. No.128/95 and 14/97. Ex.P5 is theorder passed on the application filed under Section 319of Cr.P.C.

7. Documents of Ex.P2 to P5 bear the seal of true copywith the designation of First Additional Sessions Judge,Sagar Shri Surendra Tiwari but there is no signature onany of these documents to certify that the producedcopies are actually the true copies compared with theoriginal documents. By merely putting the seal on thesedocuments, they cannot be claimed to be the true copies. Thus, it can be observed that Ex.P2 to P5 are theuncertified and unverified photocopies which were notadmissible in evidence as such.

8. Ex.P1 is the complaint made by Shri SurendraTiwari (First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar) inwhich it has been claimed that appellant had given falsetestimony in the Court in both the sessions cases namelyS.T. No.128/95 and 14/97. To bring home thisallegation, the prosecution was supposed to produce the legally admissible copies of the statements of appellantgiven before the concerned criminal Court and alsobefore the police for the purpose of comparison andexamination, but prosecution has failed to produce anylegally admissible copies of the statements of appellantgiven before the Court of justice or before the police.

9. B.P. Sharma (PW1) who is the lone witnessexamined in the case has not testified a word against theappellant regarding the allegation of giving falsestatement. According to him, he did not work asdeposition writer, therefore, his testimony is not relevantto prove that appellant had given any false statement inthe Court. No comparison was made by this witness ofthe statements of appellant. The concerned judicialofficer was not examined as a witness.

10. The trial Court has observed in para 2 of itsjudgment that the fact of giving statements in S.T.No.14/97 and 128/95 is admitted. The examination ofappellant conducted under Section 313 CrPC reflectsthat in answer to question nos.4 & 5 he has admitted thefact that he gave statements in both these sessions trial,but has expressed ignorance whether documents markedas Ex.P3 and P4 were his statements given in those twocases.

11. Thus, despite there being partial admission on the part of appellant, the prosecution has failed to provethat any false statement was given by the appellantbefore the Court concerned.

12. Taking all these facts into consideration, this Courtis of the observation that prosecution has failed to proveits case by any stretch of imagination and evidenceproduced by it was grossly insufficient. Thus, theconviction of appellant under Sections 193 and 195 IPCis set aside and this appeal is allowed."

6 . As the Co-ordinate Bench has already decided the identical issuearising out of the same criminal prosecution, the present appeal is also allowedand the judgment of conviction and sentence are set aside. The appellant isacquitted. The appellants are on bail thus, there personal bond and bail bond bedischarged.

7. The record of the trial Court be returned along with copy of this order.

8. With the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed as indicated above.

K.S.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)JUDGE