GOPAL KRISHNA GEHLOT Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition u/S 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for expunging remarks passed in Paragraph No.29 of the impugned judgment dtd. 30/8/2022 (Annexure P-22) delivered by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Agar in S.T. No.100027/2014 and for quashing of FIR/Crime No.641/2022 (Annexure P-12) registered at P/S Agar, Agar Malwa [M.P.].

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 9/12/2013, some unknown persons with intent to kill Roop Singh by means of lathi assaulted him. He sustained grievous injuries on his head and other body parts. An FIR was lodged on the same day by his nephew Pawan Batham at P/S Agar against 34 unknown persons. Due to injuries, Roop Singh got unconscious and was taken to Community Health Centre, Agar, wherefrom, he was referred to Sanjeevni Hospital, Ujjain. On 10/12/2013, ASI RB Singh Chouhan wrote a letter to Medical Officer at Sanjeevni Hospital, Ujjain to take statement of injured person, but the doctor had given opinion that the injured is not in a state to give statement. Thereafter, statement of eyewitnesses u/S 161 of Cr.P.C. of Shubham and Umesh were recorded by present applicant, who was posted as SI at P/S Agar. He also recorded statement of Parvez and Heeralal and it was found that the accused persons Siddhu Maharaj @ Siddhu Bhartiya and his wife Tulsibai had assaulted Roop Singh. When Roop Singh was admitted at Sanjeevni Hospital, Ujjain, then applicant had also recorded his statement. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.

(3.) During trial of the aforesaid case, it was found by the trial Court that the applicant has not mentioned the name of injured Roop Singh in witness list annexed with charge-sheet. His name was also not mentioned as a witness in the trial program filed by Additional Government Pleader. The applicant was examined before the trial Court on 25/8/2022, (Annexure P-9), at that time case diary was not available and the present applicant was retired from the service. The applicant had stated that he had not recorded the statement of Roop Singh, but after writing several letters to the Police Station and Senior Police Officers, on 26/12/2022 case diary was submitted. Then it appeared that the applicant, on 16/12/2023 had recorded statement of Roop Singh. The trial Court has also received information that Roop Singh had died one year ago, therefore, he could not be examined before the trial Court. Other eye-witnesses have also turned hostile and have not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, the accused persons have been acquitted. Thereafter, the learned trial Court had observed that the applicant had recorded the statement of injured Roop Singh, but he gave false statement in the Court that he had not recorded the statement of Roop Singh. The applicant had also not annexed the statement of injured person with the charge- sheet. Therefore, on the aforesaid ground in Paragraph 29, the learned trial Court has passed remarks which runs as under: