SUMARNI DEVI(SMT.) Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission. The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 31/10/2013 passed by Special Judge, Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti & Vyapharan Prabavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981, Bhind in an unregistered complaint "Smt. Sumarni Devi vs. Ramveer Mishra and Ors." which was dismissed under section 203 of Cr.P.C. Facts of the case, in short, are that the applicant has filed a criminal complaint before the Special Judge on 19/08/2010 with the pleadings that on 11/10/2008 at about 2 Pm, the respondents No. 2 to 8 entered in the house of the complainant having gun, ballam, sabbal and sticks. The respondent Nathuram Sharma had a Tractor with him. They robbed one buffalo and one cow from the house. Thereafter a four wheeler was brought and it was tried to rash upon the victim. Thereafter, the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 took 10 quintals of wheat, one armacher costing Rs. 30,000/ -, cash of Rs. 50,000/ -, various golden ornaments, brass utensils, etc. forcefully. Jitesh (PW -4) son of the complainant/applicant had tried to protest and therefore, Ram ratan Sharma fired with the gun. However, due to that firing one calf kept in the campus was killed. In the complaint, it was mentioned that the incident was seen by Prema Bai (PW -2) & Nathuram (PW -3). It was also mentioned that one Shrikant brother of Ramveer Sharma was killed by unknown person and false FIR was lodged in that case and, therefore, the husband of the complainant and her one son was in custody at that time and to take revenge such robbery was committed by the respondents No. 2 to 8. In support Smt. Sumarni Mishra (PW - 1), Prema Bai (PW -2), Nathuram (PW -3) and Jitesh Mishra (PW - 4) were examined. The trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the complainant dismissed the complaint under section 203 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) In the present case, there is a sole question as to whether the witnesses were believable or not? Learned counsel for the applicant submits that soon after the incident the complainant went to the police station to lodge FIR, but it was not written and thereafter she sent report to the higher officials and postal receipts of sending of such complaint was submitted before the trial court. Being a woman she could not do anything against the respondents No. 2 to 8. However, a petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C was filed which was withdrawn on 23/09/2009 because the applicant had an alternative remedy to file a criminal complaint and thereafter she filed a complaint. There was no delay from the side of the complainant / applicant in lodging a complaint. Under these circumstances, the witnesses of the complainant should have been believed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents have argued against and opposed the registration of the complaint. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the evidence recorded before the trial court it would be apparent that the incident took place on 11/10/2008. No FIR is available in this case with the pretext that the police did not write any FIR on the request of the applicant. However, the matter was referred to the Station House Officer, Pawai, Dist. Bhind and the SHO concerned has submitted a report dated 20/10/2011 that no such offence was made out. The complainant has mentioned the name of the witnesses in such a manner as if they were not related to the complainant, whereas, Prema Bai (PW -2) is mother -in -law of the complainant and Jitesh Mishra (PW -4) is her major son. Nathuram was not an independent witness. Such crime of robbery was committed in a broad day light, but it is surprising that no independent witness appeared before the trial court to prove the incident. Some photographs were filed along with the complaint, where the complainant was trying to show that these photographs were taken of the house of the complainant soon after the incident. No person was examined to prove that he had taken such photographs and such photographs were taken soon after the incident. Similarly, the postal receipts were submitted to show that a written complaint was sent to the higher officials, but the copy of the complaint was not annexed with the postal receipts to show that the complaint was sent to the higher officials by that registered post.