Trilok Jaiswal and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

______________________________________________________________ For the Appellant : Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For State / Respondent : Shri Anurag Tripathi, P.L.

¶14

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board

¶16

09/04/2025

¶17

This appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC) has been filed by the appellants, assailing the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the judgment dated 18/01/2005 passed by the Special Judge constituted under Scheduled Caste & Schedule Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, District

¶18

Bilaspur (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 41/2000. By the impugned judgment the

¶19

appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner :

¶20

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 294 of I.P.C	S.I. for 01 month
Under Section 427 of I.P.C	S.I. for 03 months
Under Section 506 of I.P.C	S.I. for 03 moths
Under Section 451 of I.P.C	S.I. for 03 Months and fine of Rs. 200/- to each of the appellant and in default of payment of fine 07 days simple imprisonment
All the sentences	to run concurrently.

¶21

-2-

¶22

Initially five accused persons namely - Pramod Kumar Mishra, Dheerendra Kumar Singh, Gokaran Sharma, Trilok Jaiswal and Ramesh Kurre were put to trial for an offence punishable under sections 147, 294, 506 (B), 451 and 427 read with 149 of the IPC.

¶23

By the impugned judgment, the co-accused - Pramod Kumar Mishra, Dheerendra Kumar Singh and Gokaran Sharma were acquitted from all the charges whereas the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.

¶24

Prosecution case, in nutshell, is that, that complainant – Kunti Kirar (PW-1) was at her home with their children. In the night of 08/01/2000 in between 07:00PM – 08:00PM, accused Pramod Kumar, Dhirendra Kumar and Gokaran Prasad were utterly abusing by filthily language outside the house of the complainant. They were provoking 20-25 school students that ‘Harijan, Neech, Chamaar Achoot’ were sent to jail’’.They will create difficulties for their living. They provoked the boys to break the door, throw the house hold goods and kill them, if they created any type of obstruction. Upon which along-with the student of school, accused – Trilok Jaiswal, Ramesh Kurre and other 20-25 boys broke and open the back door of the complainant’s house, entered into her house and threw away the furniture on the road, broke the bulb and continue to threatened of dire consequences using filthily language. Complainant - Kunti Kirar (PW-1) went to lodge a report at Police Station- Marwahi, however her report was not lodged. On 12/01/2000 written report was lodged at Harijan Police Station, Bilaspur. Sub-Inspector - Sachin Dev Shukla (PW-5) received the written report on 12/01/2000. However, the crime was registered on 11/04/2000 by him. Investigation was set on motion. Statement of the witnesses was recorded. Caste certificate of the complainant was seized and after due investigation the charge-sheet was filed.

¶25

The appellants and other co-accused were charged as stated above who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

¶26

Prosecution in order to establish its case, examined as many as 08 witnesses.

¶27

-3-

¶28

Statement of the appellants as well as the other co-accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded in which they claimed their innocence and false implication. The defense was taken by the appellants that the husband of the complainant – M. D. Kirar (PW-2) was working as 'Principal' and had committed assault with accused P.K. Mishra. P.K. Mishra lodged a report on 08/01/2000 at 17 hrs. Ex.P/5, against M.D. Kirar, Dharmendra, R.B. Singh and Shasank Kirar upon which against husband and son of the complainant offence under section 307 of the IPC was registered, therefore a false report to save her husband, has been lodged by the complainant. On the evidence brought before the learned trial Court, as stated above, the other coaccused have been acquitted from all the charges whereas the appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated above by the impugned judgment which is assailed before this Court.

¶29

Learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that total false case has been lodged against the appellants as one of the co-accused – P.K. Mishra has lodged a report against the husband and son of the complainant which led to filing of the false complaint against the present appellants and other co-accused. He submits that the statement of complainant and other witnesses is full of contradiction and omission and the appellants herein have been falsely arrayed to save the misdeed of husband and son of the complainant. He submits that a report is lodged with delay after giving a thoughtful consideration to falsely implicate the appellants. Therefore no conviction can be sustained on the statement of prosecution witnesses. Alternatively he submits that the maximum sentenced sustained upon the appellants is of three months and they have already remained in jail for about 20 days. Therefore in the event the appeal is dismissed by this Court, the sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone. As the appellants have faced the criminal prosecution for more than 25 years and they must reformed in the society and their release is not detrimental to society at large and by this time, the appellants must have attained a mature age. No fruitful purpose would be served in the event they are sent back to the jail after lapse of 25 years.

¶30

-4-

¶31

Per contra, learned Counsel for the State opposing the submissions and submits that statement of complainant and other witnesses are credible and conviction can sustain on their statement. Even if a report is lodged by one of the acquitted co-accused P.K. Mishra against the husband of complainant it would not mean that the incident had not occurred. Therefore,the appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

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

¶33

Learned trial court relied upon the statement of Kunti Kirar (PW-1), Shashank Kirar (PW-3) and Dr. A.R. Karoliya (PW-4) to hold that appellant No.1 – Trilok Jaiswal and appellant No.2 – Ramesh Kurre entered the house and also vandalized it and their presence is establish by these witnesses and ultimately convicted the appellants. Therefore, statement of this witnesses required to be analyzed cautiously. Smt. Kunti Kirar (PW-1) in her statement before the Court stated that she was informed by her husband that she had a quarrel with accused - P.K. Mishra and thereafter her husband went to lodge a report at Police Station by motorcycle. In the night at about 07:30 - 08:00 PM accused – P.K. Mishra, D.K. Singh (principal) and G.P. Mishra along-with 20-25 children came there and started abusing filthily infront of the house. They provoked the children and upon such provocation the bulb was broken by them. The back door of the house was broken by the children and four chairs kept in the courtyard were taken by them. Thereafter, the boys entered the house and took away the government papers kept in the almirah. She further deposed that thereafter, Trilok Jaiswal and Ramesh Kurre came before her. Trilok Jaiswal assaulted twice by stick and filthily abused her, thereafter many children entered into the house and took away the money kept in the almirah. The almirah was open by Trilok Jaiswal and he filthily abused her son Shashank who was aged about 16 years and threatened him for dire consequences. At the time of incident R.B. Singh and her nephew (Indrapal) was there who have seen the incident. In the night, Dr. S.R. Karoliya (PW-4) came and he also saw the children and Ramgopal Yadav has also seen the incident. Dharmendra Singh and R.B.Singh also witnessed the incident. She also deposed that

¶34

-5-

¶35

for two days her husband has not come and he was detained in the Police Station and Police Station has not informed it. Therefore she did not lodge any report. On the third day she with Indrapal went to the Police Station – Marwahi at 06:00 AM. Kerketta Saheb told them to send the papers with some one and report would not be lodged and thereafter she went to the Police Station – Pendra, there also her report was not lodged. On 12/04/2000, she went to the Harijan Kalyan Police Station - Bilaspur to lodge the report. She got the application typed in the Court and lodged the report at Harijan Police Station (Ex.P/1). She was subjected to lengthy crossexamination by the appellants and other co-accused. She happens to exhibit her signature in Ex. D/1 from A to A and B to B. She also admits that on 10/01/2000, she went to lodge a report to Police Station – Marwahi. She further admitted that after Ex.D/1, she lodged a report at Harijan Police Station – Marwahi on 12/04/2000 (Ex.P/1). In the meanwhile she did not lodge any report. She further stated that report Ex.D/1 was submitted to Police Station – Marwahi. However she admits that she was frightened without reading, she had made the signature on Ex.D/1 and she does not know what is written in Ex.D/1. She further stated that Ex.D/1 was written by the children on their own and they were not told by her with this regard and only put the signature. She admits to omit the fact that her husband told him that he had a quarrel with accused – P.K. Mishra and therefore he is going to make report and left by motorcycle lodge a report in the Police Station. She is also admitted that the factum of assault twice by stick be Trilok Jaiswal filthily abusing and taking away money by the children and other articles was given in the report, however it is not mentioned she does not know the reason.

¶36

M.D. Kirar (PW- 2) is the principal who deposed in his statement that her wife Kunti Bai informed him that accused - P.K. Mishra, D.K. Singh, G.P. Sharma, Trilok Jaiswal and Ramesh Kurre entered the home by breaking the door, filthily abused and committed assault with his child Shashank. He further deposed that from the date of incident the accused person looted 25-30 thousand worth articles. In the cross examination he has admitted that when the incident was taking place he was not in

¶37

-6-

¶38

the house rather was in the Marwahi Police Station. He admits that Marwahi Police Station arrested him and was sent to Pendra jail and also admitted that from 08/01/2000 to 14/01/2000 he does not know anything about the incident which took place in his house.

¶39

Shashank Kiraar (PW- 3) also deposed in the line of PW-1 and also stated that P.K Mishra, D.K. Singh, D.P. Sharma were also standing outside the boundary wall and were shouting. Thereafter 20-25 boys entered the house breaking the back door and assaulted by her mother and himself by stick. Alter that Ramesh Kurre assaulted him with Lathi. They were filthily abusing and took away Rs.10,000/-, four fiber chairs and plenty of stuff from the box and broke down the tube rod. They were not allowed to leave the house. On 10/04/2000 her mother and one Indrapal went to lodge a report at Police Station but no proceedings was carried out, therefore they came back. He admits that Police has not recorded his statement for nine months. He also admitted that his statement was recorded after ten months. He further stated that till morning of 10/01/2000, the student were not allowing them to leave the house. Therefore, her mother lodged a report on 10/01/2000. He admits that his father had a quarrel with P.K. Mishra in the school. He shows his ignorance as to why the statement with regard to shouting by P.K. Mishra, D.K. Singh and G.P. Sharma and looting of Rs.10,000/- from almirah is not mentioned in his statement Ex.P/2. He further unable to explain as to why the factum of breaking down the chair taking away Rs.90/- by the boys is missing in the Police statement Ex.D/2.

¶40

Dr. A.R. Karoliya (PW-4) stated in his statement that there was quarrel between Mr. Kirar and Pramod Mishra. He parked his scooter infront of Kirar’s house there was darkness some boys was gathered who were filthily abusing in Chhattisgarhi Language, the door of Mr. Kirar was closed and he knocked the door and the same was opened by Mrs. Kirar (PW-1) behind her son was there, they were frightened and crying. He was told that boys made articles of her home messy/untidy. When he entered the house he saw that 02-03 boys are inside the house. The articles were mismanaged. He admits that he does not know the three boys inside the house and

¶41

-7-

¶42

he cannot tell that the appellants present in the court are the same or not. He has not seen any accused persons present in the courtyard of the house.

¶43

Trial Court has placed reliance upon the statement of these witnesses though Smt. Kunti Kirar (PW-1) in her statement happens to narrate the story as how the incident has occurred. It has been further deposed that 20-25 boys entered the house initially three acquitted /accused persons entered the house and after they left, the present appellant entered the house and one of them Trilok Jaiswal made an assault. However there is a major omission with regard to the looting of the article as well as entering of 20-25 persons in the house. Thought the PW-1 stated that they were frightened and they were not allow to leave the house. Initially the report was lodged at Police Station – Marwahi on 10/01/2000 and there after when nothing happen, the report was lodged at Harijan Police Station – Bilaspur. Initial report was said to be lodged on 10/01/2000 and another report was lodged before Harijan Police Station in the month of April. The last three months, nothing has been done by the complainant. She also admits that the report lodged before the Harijan Police Station was typed in the Court and her statement Ex.P/1 also indicates that she has made many improvement in her Court statement. The offence is said to have been committed by the appellant as well the other 20-25 persons, but it does not appear that they were made an accused by the prosecution. The charge-sheet was filed against 05 persons. Allegations were levelled against Pramod Kumar Mishra, Dheerendra Kumar Singh and Gokaran Sharma, however the learned trial Court does not find any cogent and prudent evidence against them and acquitted them. While the initial incident took place, according to the prosecution and statement of PW-1 three accused persons entered the house and later on two accused persons entered the house. It is also an admitted position that when the incident had occurred prior to that, the report was already lodged against the husband of the appellant by one of P.K. Mishra and husband of the complainant was sent to jail. Assault allegedly was made by Trilok Jaiwal as per statement of PW-1 and according to Shashank Kirar (PW-3) assault was made by Ramesh Kurre (A-2). From perusal of the statements of the witnesses it

¶44

-8-

¶45

appears that improvement has been made and reliance by the learned trial Court upon these three witnesses appears to be misplaced and cannot be accepted. Therefore on closed assessment of these witnesses and particularly no Doctor was examined to prove any injury to the injured, as a counter blast of the report lodged by one of the acquitted co-accused – P.K. Mishra against the husband the report against the appellants appears to have been made. On similar allegations, the other coaccused have been acquitted, therefore this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellants. Thus appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The appellants are acquitted from all charges.

¶46

Since the appellant are reported to be on bail, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of the provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023.

¶47

The record be sent back to the trial Court along with a copy of this Judgment for necessary compliance and information.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶50

Ashish

Trilok Jaiswal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trilok Jaiswal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivek Singh Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Arun Kumar Pradhan Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Bhigeshwary Bandhaw Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mithlesh Rao Alias Krishna Rao Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohit Ram and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Diwan Vs State of Chhattisgarh