LAKHANLAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was charged and prosecuted under section 324 I.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Baloda Bazar in Criminal Case No. 122/83 for assaulting the complainant Uma Bai (PW -3) by a Katari on 7.3.1983.

(2.) ON evaluation of prosecution evidence, the learned Magistrate found the applicant guilty for the offence and, therefore, sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and a fine of Rs. 200/ -, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for one month. This conviction and sentence has been maintained in Criminal Revision No. 69/86 decided on 15.12.1987 by the IIIrd Additional Judge, Raipur link Court Baloda Bazar against which this further revision has been filed.

(3.) IT is an admitted fact that the prosecution did not produce the F.I.R. said to have been made by the complainant. It is also an admitted fact that the Investigating officer has also not been examined to lend support that First Information Report was lodged against the applicant and to assign reason for not producing the First Information Report. It could not be disputed that First Information Report is not substantial piece of evidence, but, its importance cannot be disputed, for the reason that the Police Report is the earliest version which may be used for supporting or contradicting the prosecution story narrated by the complainant. If the report is not produced, the legal presumption can reasonably be drawn that it did not support prosecution case. If the material evidence is not produced, an adverse inference can legitimately be drawn against the party who would have produced the same. That being so, in the instant case, it has to be presumed that the First Information Report lodged by the complainant was against his version in the Court that the applicant has actually assaulted the complainant. The incident had occurred at night hour and it is quite possible that the complainant may not have actually seen the assailant. The non - production of the First Information Report, thus, creates a reasonable doubt as to the complicity of the applicant in the commission of the crime and, therefore, the benefit of doubt must go to the applicant. In this view of the matter, I am supported by the decision of this Court in Parasram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1970 JLJ short "note 113).