RAM NEWAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Applicant Ram Niwas has been bound down Under Section 110 Code of Criminal Procedure and ordered to execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000/ - along with two reliable sureties in the like amount to be of good behaviour for a period of one year failing which he was to undergo SI for the said period. The order was confirmed in appeal In this case 34 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. They included Pradhan along with the sarpanch and other reliable persons of the locality. The Applicant had also examined 38 witnesses in defence including the sarpanch of the Nyaya Panchayat of another village, Block Pramukh aid Headmaster etc, who had testified 13 his good character and conduct.

(2.) THE case of the Applicant was that he was in the service of one Lal Parmatma Pd. Pa (PW 9), sarpanch of Nyaya Panchayat of Baknar, who was on inimical terms with Gyanendra Pd. Pandey Pradhan and as such at the instance of the Pradhan, these proceedings were taken against the Applicant. The lower courts have considered the entire evidence adduced by both the parties and then arrived at the conclusion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is more reliable. It was argued that in making the appraisal of the evidence, the lower courts have applied double standard. Reliance was placed on the case of Karey v. State : AIR 1959 All. 347 : AWR 33 in support of the contention. All that was held in that case was that the evidence of general repute should be weighed very carefully. It could certainly never be the intention of the learned Judge to hold that the mere fact that the defence had examined a number of witnesses including some who were known as respectable witnesses is sufficient for discharging the accused person. In such a case all that can be said is that the evidence adduced has to be weighed with greater care. The lower appellate court has considered the evidence of all the defence witnesses and has commented about most of the defence witnesses that they could have no opportunity to influence the Applicant. The learned Sessions Judge has arrived at the conclusion that the witnesses had mostly deposed under the influence of Lal Parmatma Pd. Pal who was interested in supporting the Applicant as he was his employee. The evidence of many of the prosecution witnesses has been supported by the FIRs which these witnesses had filed earlier against the Applicant with regard to various offences said to have been committed by him. There are fifteen such FIRs which are Exts., Ka -1 to Ka -15. All of them have been proved by their authors who were victims of various acts of highhandedness of the Applicant. The charge against the Applicant is not only that by habit he is a robber and thief etc. but also that he habitually commits offences involving breach of peace.

(3.) IT was next argued that no conviction of the Applicant has been proved and that the Applicant was not even prosecuted for any offence on the basis of these reports. Reliance was placed on the cases of In re -Perne Maila Rai AIR 1938 Mad. 597 and Islam -ud -din v. Emperor : AIR 1939 Lah. 269. In those cases it was held that when an accused had been discharged or acquitted in previous cases, the mere fact that he was prosecuted in those cases is not relevant. It was argued that the Applicant was not even prosecuted and as such the FIRs cannot be considered to be at all relevant. The main consideration in such a proceeding is whether there is sufficient evidence of bad repute against the Applicant and whether on the basis of the evidence itself it can be held that he habitually commits such offences mentioned in Section 110 Code of Criminal Procedure. The important evidence is, therefore, of the witnesses themselves who were victims of such acts. The FIRs can be used for the purpose of corroborating their testimony. The evidence of these witnesses cannot be discarded simply because the Applicant was not prosecuted for convicted on the basis of these FIRs. In the case of In re -Perne Maila Rai (supra), it was observed as follows: