ARVIND UPADHYAYA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was held guilty under S. 333 of the Indian Penal Code (Code for short) and ordered to execute a probation bond for Rs. 10,000/ - for six months. Charge was under S. 294 and 333 of the Code. Co -accused Balkrishna who was peon in Govt. Ayurvedic Pharmacy was acquitted of both the charges. The appellant was also acquitted under S. 294 and 333 of the Code. All the eye witnesses including Narayan Singh Tomar (PW 4), the complainant have not supported the case of prosecution. All of them had been declared hostile and cross -examined by the Addl. Public Prosecutor. Anyhow, only Narayan Singh Tomar (PW 4) and Dr. Arvind Jain (PW 6) during their cross -examination had admitted that they had supported the case of prosecution in their statement before Investigating Officer. Anyhow, such statements are not substantive piece of evidence.

(2.) THE same could only be used to contradict these witnesses with their previous statements as provided in S. 145 of the Evidence Act. These statements could not be used to corroborate the statements or take place of substantive evidence in the case. Obviously Madanmohan (PW 2) Rambabu Khandelwal (PW 3), Narayan Singh Tomar (PW 4) and Dr. Arvind Jain (PW 6) had not supported the prosecution case at all. None of them had claimed that the appellant had caused hurt to Narayan Singh Tomar (PW 4) by hitting the blow of electric tube rod. It is noteworthy, that this electric tube rod or its pieces were not seized by the Police and were not produced in Court. All these witnesses have clearly admitted that they could not see in the crowd as to who had hit Narayan Singh Tomar (PW 4) and with what object. It is true that Narayan Singh Tomar (PW 4) had some injury on his person as deposed by Dr A.K Bohre (PW 1) and thus he was subjected to some manhandling, yet, it is also noteworthy that appellant also had an injury on his person of which no explanation was given.

(3.) THUS , appeal is allowed. Appellant is acquitted of the charge.