STATE OF M P Vs. PAPPOO ALIAS SALEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed on behalf of the Appellant/State under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 1.3.1994 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Balaghat in Criminal Case No 790/ 87 acquitting the Respondents from the charge punishable under Section 452, 327, 506-B, 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 17.3.1987 at about 4.00 pin one Baldeo Kumar accompanied with Shiv Charan and Yogendra was taking tea in his office at the same time the Respondents including the deceased Respondent No. 2 Deva under the influence of intoxicated substance entered in his office and demanded the donation of Holi Festival. On asking by Baldeo Kumar that such festival is over and he has already given the donation earlier in that regard, on which the Respondents and deceased Respondent Deva after abusing with filthy language to Baldeo Kumar and other persons named above beaten them and also gave threat to kill them. In such incident Baldeo has sustained some grievous injuries. The matter was reported to the police on which an offence was registered against the Respondents under Section 452, 294, 323, 506-B and 34 of IPC. The injured persons were taken to hospital where their MLC reports were prepared and under the advice of doctor x-ray of injured Baldeo and Yogendra was carried out in which the crack (fracture) on base of distilphalonx of left thumb of Baldeo was revealed On completion of the investigation the Respondents and deceased accused were charge sheeted for the offence under Section 452, 327 and 506-B of IPC.

(3.) After committing the case to the Sessions Court initially the charge of Section 452, 327 and 506-B of IPC were framed against the Respondents. They abjured the guilt, on which the trial was held, in which as many as six witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case while one Bhola Singh was examined as court witness. Thereafter accused statement was recorded on 5.5.1989. Subsequent to it on 19.3.1989 one witness was examined by the Respondents in their defence. After closing the defence vide order dated 19.6.1989, the case was posted for 23.6.1989 for final argument. The same was adjourned for 26.6.1989 and on 26.6.1989 final arguments were heard and case was fixed for 4.7.1989 to deliver the judgment. On such date instead to deliver the judgment by mentioning the reasons additional charges for the offence under Section 325/34 and 323/34 were also framed against the Respondents. They again abjured the guilt with respect of such charges, on which at the request of the defence all the examined prosecution witnesses were directed to be recalled for further cross-examination. Subsequently on 12.7.1990 with respect of additional charge the defence counsel prayed to recall only three witnesses namely Yogendra Agrawal (P.W. 1), Baldeo (P.W. 6) and Shivcharan (P.W. 6) for their further cross-examination. In compliance of such order on the same day the present witness Baldeo was further cross-examined by the defence and the case was adjourned for cross-examination of said Yogendra and Shivcharan. For one reason or another inspite extending various opportunities between 31.7.90 to 22.1.1994 the prosecution could not produce such witnesses for further cross-examination and case was posted for defence evidence and ultimately on 1.3.1994 the final arguments were heard and considering the circumstance that Respondents could not get the opportunity of complete cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses namely Yogendra and Shiv Charan with respect of the additional/amended charges held that there statement being incomplete could not be taken into consideration to draw any inference against the Respondents and in the lack of any independent evidence in support of the victim the Respondents were acquitted from all alleged charges, on which the State has come forward with this appeal challenging such acquittal of the Respondents.