______________________________________________________________ For the Appellants : Shri Shubham Tripathi, Advocate. For State / Respondent : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy.G.A.

¶12

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶14

C.A.V. Judgment

¶15

The Challenge in this appeal filed under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC), being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 01/06/2006 passed by the III Additional Session Judge (F.T.C.), District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Session trial No. 31/2006 by which the appellant have been

¶16

convicted and sentence in the following manner :

¶17

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 186 of I.P.C	R.I. for 3-3 months.
Under Section 448 of I.P.C	R.I. for 1-1 years
Under Section 333 of I.P.C	R.I. for 5-5 years and fine of Rs. 500/- each in default of payment of fine additional RI 1-1 month each.
Under Section 135 of the Representation of People Act, 1951	R.I. for 1-1 years
Under Section 135(A) of the Representation of People Act, 1951	R.I. for 1-1 years and fine of Rs. 100/- , in default of payment of fine additional R.R. for 01 month each.

¶18

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Sarapnch election was conducted in the Village-Nakna on 20/01/2005. At about 07:00PM in the night, the appellants entered into the polling booth unauthorizly, filthily abused and assaulted the present polling parties which caused grievous injuries to Khemaprasad (PW/11), took out the ballot

¶19

-2-

¶20

box and burnt the ballot paper. Upon which on the basis of written report FIR was lodged by complainant PW/2 Brijmohan Dadsena which is marked as Ex.P/12. Upon which investigation was set on motion and the offense punishable under sections 452,294, 506-B, 186, 332 of the IPC and sections 14(छ) of Chhattisgarh Pradhikari (Nirvachan Apradh) Adhiniyam was registered in crime No.12/2005. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/13. Seizure of the Ballot box were made vide Ex.P/14. The injured Khemaprasad was sent for MLC. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. Appellants were arrested and after due investigation charge-sheet was prepared and filed before the competent Court.

¶21

The appellants were charged for offence punishable under sections 452,294, 506-B, 186, 332 of the IPC and sections 14(छ) of Chhattisgarh Pradhikari (Nirvachan Apradh) Adhiniyam. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

¶22

In order to establish the guilt of the appellant, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and document exhibited as Ex.P/1 to P/20. The statement of the appellants under 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he claimed false implication and they examined 03 witnesses in their defense DW/1 to DW/3.

¶23

The learned trial court after appreciating the evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the conviction of the appellants is bad in law, there is no admissible evidence against the appellants. The learned trial court has relied upon a Panchnama in which the name of the appellants was reflected on the saying of the some villagers, which is not admissible in the evidence. Apart from this the statement from all the witnesses none of the witnesses have identified the appellants and the case of prosecution itself is that more than 100 people entered into the polling booth whereas only 03 person put to trial and no test identification parade was conducted as the appellants where not known to the complainant other polling party. He further submits even otherwise from perusal of

¶25

-3-

¶26

the entire evidence, the case against the appellant is not made out.

¶27

Per contra, learned Counsel for the State supports the judgment and submits that the finding is recorded on the basis of proper appreciation of evidence and is well merited finding which does not require any interference.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission and also perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶29

The complainant Brijmohan Dansena (PW-8) had lodged the report Ex.P/11 and examined PW/8. In his deposition before the court he had not identified the appellants. He has proved FIR vide Ex.P/12 and Panchanama vide Ex.P/1 and P/2. He further stated the said Panchnama was prepared by the Zonal Officers and on the basis of the information of the villagers. He has also prove the seizure of ash's of the ballot papers Ex.P/14. This witnesses was declared hostile by this prosecution and he is denied that he is given the statement to the Police. He has denied the suggestion that since he knows the appellants, therefore in order to save them giving a false statement. In his cross-examination he stated it is true to say that the gathering was of about 100-150 people and he does not identify any person as there was darkness and was not able to see the faces. He further stated that he does not found Raviram, Santram and accused Kartikram. He further stated in the Panchnama the name of the appellants were recorded by the villagers, therefore in report Ex.P/11 and Ex.P/15 the name of the appellants were written. He has further deposed in the Panchnama he has not stated the name of appellants to the Police and the statement was recorded on the basis of Panchnama.

¶30

There are about 06 eyewitnesses in the case. AW/1 Shankar Das claims to be eyewitness and his statement totally denied the prosecution case and he was also declared hostile. In his cross-examination he has stated that it is true to say that during the recording of the Police statement, he has informed that about 100-150 persons have entered by shouting and he could not identified any of the person. He

¶31

-4-

¶32

further stated in the gathering, who was assaulting and who was threatening he could not understand. He has further stated that the ballot box was taken by villagers and they have burnt it. From the statement of this witnesses it does not appears that he has seen the appellants inside the polling booth and he further deposed that he does not know who has prepared Ex.P/1 and P/2 (Panchnama).

¶33

AW/2 Santram Rathiya another eye witnesses has failed to identify in his deposition to the appellants and was declared hostile. Nothing incriminating was brought in his statement. PW/4 Amrit Das has also denied that to identify the appellants. He further stated that it was a night time therefore he could not see the appellants he was declared hostile. Nothing incriminating was brought on record against the appellants. Likewise PW/9 Mahipatram Rathiya also did not support the case of prosecution and was declared hostile and in his statement before the court has not stated anything against the appellant. PW/10 Shivshanker Sai has also deposed he has not know the appellants. He further stated about 100-150 people came on the village and entered in the polling booth and took away the ballot box and burned it. He has stated that he has put his signature in Panchanama Ex.P/1. He was declared hostile nothing has been brought on record incriminating against the appellants.

¶34

Khemaprasad the injured eyewitness PW/11 has stated that he does not know the appellants ans who has taken the ballot box he does not know and who has burnt it he does not know. He was also declared hostile. He stated in the Panchnama 2-3 people name was mentioned and does not the appellants personally. He denied that he cannot tell that the appellant has assaulted him. PW/12 S.S Patle, Investigating Officer has deposed in favour of the prosecution.

¶35

After analyzing the evidence on record it appears that none of them stated anything against the appellants. From the evidence it also gathered that 100-150 people have entered the polling booth. From the evidence of this witnesses it appears that none of them have stated that the ballot box was taken by the appellants. The learned trial

¶36

-5-

¶37

court relied on Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 Panchnama in which the name of the appellants is reflected. However but itself cannot be accepted as the witness to this Panchnama had not supported in their statement before the trial court. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellants.

¶38

Appeal thus allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The appellants are acquitted from all charges. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bond will remain in force for a period of six month in view of section 437A of Cr.P.C.

¶39

Sd/- Sd/-

¶40

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶41

Ashish

Ravi Goand v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ravi Goand v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Municipal Corporation Durg Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization

Mukesh Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Nehru Ojha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pawan Singraul Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajat Tiwari Vs Union Of India

Ram Bishal Upadhyay Vs Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Election Commission