BALRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the conviction and sentence under sections 394 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant and the complainant, Sudama Singh (P.W. 2) are petty businessmen of village Mahora and village Duari respectively. The appellant and Ganpat Singh (P.W. 1), Likhwa (P.W. 3), Mangal Singh (P.W. 4), Vishram (P.W. 5), Tirath Singh (P.W. 6), Sonhar Singh (P.W. 7) Nehru (P. W. 10) and Bhoora Singh (P. W. 11) belong to village Mahora. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 9-9-1978, the complainant Sudama Singh (P. W. 2) had come to the village of the appellant on his horse to purchase mustard from Ganpat Singh (P.W. 1) and as he failed to get mustard on his return when he was passing in front of the house of the appellant, the appellant called him in. Though the complainant had no inclination to visit the appellant, the wife and son, Vishnupratap Singh, caught hold ofT his horse and stopped him. He was dragged in the house by the appellant where his hands and neck was tied by rope. The complainant further alleged that he was relieved of the cash of Rupees four hundred, and other articles which were with him. Nehru (PW 10) who was passing that-way saw the incident and asked the appellant to desist from his actions. The appellant alleged to have threatened Nehru (P. W. 10) of the same consequences. Nehru (P. W. 10) proceeded to inform other persons of the village and while he was returning to the place of incident with Bhoora Singh (P. W. 10) Tirath Singh (P.W. 6) and Likhwa (P.W.3), they met Sudama Singh (P.W. 2) on the way. Sudama Singh (P.W. 2) lodged the report vide (Ex. P-i) on 10.4-1978 at about 1 pm. at police station Rajendragram which is at a distance of about 20.k m. Sudama Singh (P.W 2) was examined by Dr. P. C Shrivastava (P.W.8) vide his report (Ex. P-7), noted five abrasions on the person of the complainant including around the neck which confirms tying of rope. The defence has been of false implication.

(2.) On evaluation of the prosecution evidence the learned judge held the appellant guilty of the charges under sections 342 and 194 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that both, the appellant and the complainant were businessmen and the incident was a result of business rivalry. It was also argued that no case under section 394 of the Indian Penal Cede is made out as the articles which were seized from the appellant were of common use, and there is no specific mark of identification. As for the injury received by the complainant, it was stated by the learned counsel that would, at the most, amount to voluntary causing simple hurt punishable under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel also submitted that the appellant cannot be held guilty for the offence under section 342 of the Indian Penal Code as the complainant was restrained, according to the prosecution evidence, by the wife and son of the appellant who have not been prosecuted.

(3.) In order to appreciate the submission made on behalf of the appellant, I have carefully studied the record. In my opinion, although both, the appellant and the complainant are businessmen, there is no material in record from which an inference as regards to business rivalry can be drawn. Therefore, merely on the ground that the appellant and the complainant were businessmen, no inference can be drawn to the effect that the incident was due to business rivalry. The horse belonging to the appellant and other articles were seized, from the house of the appellant on 13-9- 78 vide (Ex. P-4) and (Ex. P.5) which have been proved by Sonhar Singh (P.W. 7) and Bhoora Singh (P.W. 11). The horse seized from the appellant was put to test identification vide (Ex. P-2) by Bhoora Singh (P.W. 11) which was identified by the complainant. The appellant has not claimed either the horse or the articles seized from his possession The prosecution has fully proved the recovery of the horse and other articles from the possession of the appellant and I see no reason to take any contrary view. I accept the finding of the learned judge so far as the offence under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned.