The State of M.P. vs Delan Singh

Hon''ble Justice Shri N. K. Gupta

The appellant/State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 1.7.1996, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narsinghpur in Criminal Case No. 1371/1993, by which the respondent was acquitted from the charge for offence punishable u/s 392 of I.P.C. The prosecution story in short is that, on 21.3.1993 at about 4.50 p.m the complainant Pera Bai (P.W.1) was coming back from the market to her house situated at Village Sarsala. Near Geheranala the respondent Delan Singh met her. He gave a threat with help of an axe and directed her to drop her ornament "Chhuta". The respondent also snatched the bangles from her right hand. On her shouting witnesses Milap (P.W.2) and Lakhpat came to the spot. They saw the respondent who was running from the spot. The complainant informed about the incident to her daughter-in-law in the evening and on the next day she informed the entire story to her husband. Since her son was not present in the house therefore, report was lodged on the next day. Nothing was seized from the respondent. However, after due investigation Police has filed a charge sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narsinghpur.

The respondent abjured his guilt. He took the plea that tube well of the respondent and the complainant were adjacent and one electrical wire was burnt. There was a dispute between the parties for price of that electrical wire and therefore, a false FIR has been lodged by the complainant against him. However, no defence evidence was adduced.

Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution found that the testimony of the complainant was not trustworthy and therefore, the respondent was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt to him.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that testimony of complainant Pera Bai (P.W.1) was duly corroborated by witnesses Milap (P.W.2) and Lakhpat Singh (P.W.3). Also the testimony was confirmed by Narmadi Bai (P.W.4), daughter-in-law of the complainant. Explanation was given by the complainant for delay in lodging the FIR. Under such circumstances, offence punishable u/s 392 of I.P.C is duly made out against the respondent and therefore, he may be convicted and sentenced.

On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submits that there was enmity between the parties and respondent was falsely implicated in the matter with help of interested witnesses. The respondent was known to the complainant and their fields were adjacent. Under such circumstances, it was no possible for the respondent to commit robbery with a known person.

In the present case Pera Bai (P.W.1) has stated before the trial Court that the respondent had shown her an axe and directed to give the ornament "Chhuta". Thereafter, he snatched the silver bangles from her right hand. The complainant made hue and cry and therefore, witnesses Lakhpat Singh and Milap came to the spot and she told the entire story to them and thereafter, they took her to her house. With help of her son-in-law and husband, the complainant lodged an FIR on the next day. Milap (P.W.2) and Lakhpat Singh (P.W.3) have supported the story of the complainant Pera Bai (P.W.1). However, in the cross examination Pera Bai (P.W.1) has accepted that field of the respondent is adjacent to her field. She has denied that some electrical wire was burnt and because of that burning there was some dispute between the respondent and the complainant. She has accepted that when she went to her house, her husband Manohar was also present but, her son was not present. Pera Bai has told her age to be 45 years and therefore, she was not such an old person so that she could not go to lodge an FIR before the Police with her husband. If she could not lodge the FIR on the same day then FIR could be lodged on the next day in the morning because Police Station was only 18 kms away from her house but, FIR was lodged at about 4.50 p.m in the evening. Under such circumstances, it is apparent that FIR was lodged with delay of at least 6-7 hours and the complainant had an opportunity to consult with others including her husband. It is also important to note that no ornaments were seized by the Police from the respondent.

If statements of witnesses Milap (P.W.2) and Lakhpat Singh (P.W.3) are perused then it would be apparent from the cross-examination of the witness Lakhpat Singh that he could not see the accused at the spot. After hearing the hue and cry made by the complainant, he reached to the spot within five minutes but, he found no one at the spot and the complainant told him that accused took the ornament "Chhuta". She did not inform about the silver bangles. Milap (P.W.2) has also accepted that he could not see the accused in a proper manner. He saw him from his back and he was not sure that the person who was running from the spot was the respondent Delan Singh. It is strange that these witnesses did not take the complainant to the Police but, they left her to her house. Under such circumstances, where the witnesses Milap and Lakhpat Singh reached to the spot simultaneously, evidence of Milap cannot be accepted that he saw the respondent from his back. Under such circumstances, it is established by Milap and Lakhpat Singh that when they reached to the spot there was nobody except the complainant and she told about the incident. If the respondent took the silver bangles of the complainant then it was not possible for the complainant to hide this fact from the witnesses. Witness Milap has stated about robbery of ornament "Chhuta" and silver bangles as informed by the complainant but, Lakhpat Singh did not say about silver bangles. This is a material contradiction between the evidence of these two witnesses and it is possible that the story was narrated to them in the house of the complainant.

Submission made by learned counsel for the respondent appears to be acceptable that if victim is known then no robbery can be done by a known person. If the robbery was committed by the respondent and witnesses Milap and Lakhpat Singh came to the spot just after, then how it was possible that they could not see the respondent. It was not possible for them that one of them could see the respondent from the back and another could not see him at all. Similarly no ornament could be seized from the respondent. FIR was lodged with delay of at least 6-7 hours and no acceptable explanation is given for delay in lodging the FIR. Under such circumstances, a doubt is created that no robbery was committed with the complainant or the respondent was falsely implicated in the matter. It is settled view of Hon''ble the Apex Court that if two views are possible in a case then view taken by the trial Court relating to the acquittal shall not be disturbed. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate erred in acquitting the respondent from the charges for offence punishable u/s 392 of I.P.C. Under such circumstances, the respondent shall get the benefit of doubt which is created in his favour and he cannot be convicted for aforesaid offence. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion appeal filed by the State is hereby dismissed. Judgment passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narsinghpur is hereby confirmed.