TAJ KHAN @ TAJJU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the request of learned Counsel for the parties heard them finally. The applicants have moved a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1821/2013 pending before the JMFC, Harda on the basis of the charge sheet filed in Crime No. 215/2013 registered at Police Station, Chhipawad, District Harda.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 19-9-2013, the complainant-Bhajanlal had lodged an FIR that his cow was sent for grazing but it did not come back in the night. On 19-9-2013, at about 8.00 a.m., Sandeep and Narmadesh Mishra informed the applicant that his cow entered in the field of Tajju Khan and therefore, the applicant-Munna Korku assaulted the cow by a stick, due to that it expired. Thereafter, the applicants took the body of the cow in the tractor-trolley of the applicant-Tajju Khan and threw it in a nala. Before that skin of the cow was removed. The complainant went to the spot, saw his cow and thereafter, lodged an FIR. The Police registered the case against the applicants for offences under Sections 295, 429 of IPC and Section 4/9 of Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratished Adhiniyam, 2004. The witnesses were examined and a memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded of the applicant-Taj Khan @ Tajju Khan and in consequence a tractor-trolley was recovered.

(3.) After considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be apparent that the Investigation Officer has filed the case diary statements of four witnesses along with the charge sheet. He examined Govind, photographer and the complainant-Bhajanlal, witnesses Narmadesh and Durga Prasad under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Bhajanlal has stated that the incident was informed by Sandeep and Narmadesh Mishra. Similarly, Durga Prasad was a witness of hearsay evidence. Narmadesh has stated that he was informed by Sandeep that the applicants killed the cow of the complainant and thereafter, they had removed the skin of the cow of the complainant. It is true that in the post-mortem report, skin of the cow was found removed. However, the case diary statement of the witness Sandeep is not filed along with the charge sheet and therefore, an adverse inference shall be drawn that Sandeep did not support the prosecution's story. Looking to the statements of the various witnesses, it would be apparent that Sandeep was the only eye witness in the case and therefore, no inference can be drawn on the basis of hearsay statements of the witnesses like Narmadesh Mishra, Durga Prasad and Bhajanlal. Hence there is no ocular evidence to the fact that the applicant-Munna Korku assaulted the deceased cow by a stick and killed or the applicants took the cow and threw it in a nala after removing its skin.