CRA/2511/2006 of CHANDRABHAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed on6.12.2006 by Special Judge, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"),Chhatarpur, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence of Section 353IPC and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-with a default clause to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment, in case ofnon-payment of fine.

2 . The prosecution case may be summed up as, the appellant wasworking as teacher in Shiksha Guarantee School at Tulsiyapurwa, GramPanchayat, Hatwa, district Chhatarpur, under the Education Guarantee Scheme;on the date of incident i.e. 24.7.2004 he was conducting the elections ofGuardian-Teacher Association; at around 1:00 p.m. his wife and brother werepresent along with other persons in the school; appellant Chandrabhan alongwith Babulal and Bhola Raikwar came there and queried whether his daughterwas admitted in school or not; complainant Jagjeevanram replied that he wouldcomplete the task tomorrow as there were elections on the date of incident;appellant reacted to it very abusively; he even threatened the complainant; hestarted assaulting him and when the brother of complainant Mahesh Kumar andwife of complainant Sheila Devi came to rescue him, they both were given filthyabuses by appellant and were physically assaulted; appellant also gave lifethreats in case they reported the matter to the police; at Crime No.29/04 FIRwas registered in Police Station, Prakash Bamhori, district Chhatarpur, onwritten complaint made by complainant Jagjeevanram on the next day. Thematter was investigated; the charge-sheet was filed and the trial wascommenced. Under the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted andsentenced as aforesaid while two other persons, namely Babulal and Bhola, whofaced the trial with him, were acquitted by the trial court; appellant too wasacquitted of the offence of Sections 294, 323/34 and 506 Part II IPC andSection 3(1)(x) of the Act.

3. The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that the learned trialcourt grossly erred in holding that on 24.7.2004, complainant Jagjeevanram wasworking as public servant and was performing his official duties; there was noevidence to prove that appellant deterred him from his duties and committed assault on him; the finding of trial court in holding the appellant guilty of Section353 IPC is perverse and contrary to law; only on the basis of closely-relatedwitnesses, this conviction was held and no independent witness supported theprosecution story; the father of complainant, namely Baijnath (P.W.7) was notbelieved even by the trial court; it was observed in the judgment that thestatements of Sheila Devi were also unworthy of credit; there were seriouscontradictions in the testimonies of complainant Jagjeevanram, his wife SheilaDevi and his brother Mahesh Kumar, still the trial court ignored these materialdiscrepancies. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal should be allowed and theappellant should be acquitted or he should be punished with admonition underSection 360 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the present appeal on theground that the judgment passed by the trial Court is based upon the reliableevidence available on record and there is no reason to doubt the prosecutioncase, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and recordof the court below.

6. In all, there were total ten witnesses examined by the prosecution in this case and they are; complainant Jagjeevanram (P.W.4), his wife Sheila Devi(P.W.5), his father Baijnath (P.W.7) and his brother Mahesh Kumar (P.W.9).The other witnesses examined in this case are Asharam (P.W.1) and Shiv Karan(P.W.2) but both of them, despite being the alleged eyewitnesses, have notsupported the prosecution story. Dr. S. Prajapati (P.W.3) had examined theinjured. Sukhdev Prasad Awasthy (P.W.6) had given the certificate of duty.Head Constable Biharilal Mishra (P.W.8) had the FIR registered and SDO(P)

Pankaj Shrivastava (P.W.10) had the matter investigated.

7. As discussed earlier, the independent witnesses failed to support theprosecution story and only complainant Jagjeevanram (P.W.4), his wife SheilaDevi (P.W.5), his father Baijnath (P.W.7) and his brother Mahesh Kumar(P.W.9) have given corroborative evidence. From the testimony of thesewitnesses, it is established that appellant had gone to the Shiksha GuaranteeSchool in Tulsiyapurwa and had asked the teacher working there, namelyJagjeevanram, why his daughter was still not admitted in the school. Althoughthis fact has been admitted by the appellant that complainant Jagjeevanram wasworking as teacher in that school but prosecution has relied upon the certificate,marked as Ex.P-9, which was issued by Sukhdev Prasad Awasthy (P.W.6)mentioning that the complainant was working in that school as a teacher on thedate of incident. This witness has replied in his cross-examination that beforeissuing the letter of Ex.P-9, he called for the record of Janpad Shiksha Kendraand only on that basis he gave this information. He has not been asked anyfurther question by the defence and, thus, the facts mentioned in Ex.P-9 on thebasis of official record have not been challenged by the defence. Ex.P-9,therefore, proves that complainant Jagjeevanram was working in the ShikshaGuarantee School of Tulsiyapurwa as a public servant, was present in theschool on 24.7.2004 at the time of incident and he was authorizedly conductingthe election to Guardian-Teacher Association.

8. The statements of complainant and his relatives reveal that only those persons could contest the election to this Association whose children werestudying in the school, therefore the appellant had a grievance that he was notentitled to contest the election for the simple reason that his daughter was notgiven admission in the school by the time the elections were held and it appears

from the evidence of prosecution itself that the complainant was not yielding tothe request of appellant to get his daughter enrolled in the school beforeconducting the elections as he had told the appellant that the admission wouldbe given on the next date. Thus, the grievance of appellant was unresolved andthis was not a case of merely enrollment of his daughter in the school but alsoof participating in the election to the Guardian-Teacher Association.

9. The statements of father of complainant, namely Baijnath (P.W.7), canbe referred to for reaching to the conclusion that in the election held bycomplainant, his relatives were elected on prime posts. It has been suggested bythe defence that the complainant was not acting fairly in holding the elections ashe did not get the names of children of many prospective candidates enrolled inthe school and thereby rendered them ineligible for elections. The grievance ofappellant was also rested on this partisan approach of complainant but still canit be said that this grievance gave a right to the appellant to use criminal forceagainst the complainant and the answer is undoubtedly in negative.

10. The statements of complainant Jagjeevanram, his wife Sheila Devi andhis brother Mahesh Kumar as well as the statements of Dr. S. Prajapati (P.W.3)have proven beyond doubt that appellant used criminal force against thecomplainant Jagjeevanram causing him simple injury on his back. This forcewas used only for the reason that complainant was discharging his official dutyof conducting elections to the Guardian-Teacher Association. Ex.P-9 and thestatements of Sukhdev Prasad Awasthy (P.W.6) have proved that thecomplainant was discharging his official duty at the time of incident. Section353 IPC makes every such use of criminal force punishable which is exercisedon a public servant in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such public servant in the lawful discharge of his duty. Though the act ofcomplainant gave a cause of anguish to the appellant as it was not fair but thereis no evidence available on record to reach to the conclusion that thecomplainant was acting beyond the scope of his official duty, therefore, theprovision of Section 353 IPC is attracted in the facts of the case and thedecision of trial court in holding the appellant guilty for that offence cannot beinterfered with.

11. This appeal accordingly fails so far as the finding of conviction underSection 353 IPC is concerned.

12. The appellant was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonmentand fine of Rs.500/- for the offence of Section 353 IPC. Having considered thenature of crime and the circumstances in which it was committed, the period ofsentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by theappellant while the fine amount is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-, out of whichRs.4,000/- shall be paid to the complainant Jagjeevanram. In case, the appellantfails to pay the enhanced part of the fine amount then he shall undergo a periodof sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months. The enhanced fineamount shall be paid within two months from the date of this judgment.

13. Appellant is released on bail. His bail-bonds stand discharged.

14. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court along with itsrecord for information and necessary compliance.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA)JUDGE