K.C.Jain Madvaiya v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR

C.G.

Simh Cr. Revision No...

é7/...... /2006 APPLICANT K. C. Jain Madvaiya S/o- B.L. Jain Aged about 65 years R/oChithraguptanagar, Bhopal '

(M.P.) ( Complainant in court below)

VERSUS

-S:

APPLIC§NT l) State of Chhattisgarh 7"

o -'W'W .F Through:

- % IATah Dantewada District Dantewada (C.G.) 2) Tulsidas @ Suraj Mandavi S/o- Phaguram Madavi Aged about years, R/oLampas, Geedam P.S.

Geedam District Dantewada (C.G.) é) Mahendra Kumar Singh, S/oBahadur Singh Aged about 3O years R/o- Geendam RS. Geedam District Dantewada (C.G.) V /'

/ CRIMINAL REVISION N0. 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF Cr.P.C._

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CRR No. 671 of 2006 K.C.Jain Madvaiya ---- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

---- Respondents 'y f kg None for the applicant.

Shri Dilman Rati Mimj, Dy.G.A.for the State.

Ms. Preeti Yadav, counsel for resppndents 2 and 3. Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava J.

Order On Board 08/11/2016 This revision arises out of order dated 15/09/2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantewada, by which, respondents and been acquitted of the charges of commission of offence under Section 506 (B), 34, 332, 294, 341, 353, 323 of IPC.

2.

This revision was earlier dismissed for want of prosecution and later on, it ' was restored to its original number.

Though an application for urgent hearing was moved which was also allowed, whereafter, this revision was listed for final hearing. When the case was called on for hearing on 07/11/2016, pass over was sought by learned counsel for the applicant.

However, today, no one is present on behalf of the applicant.

3.

Respondents 2 and 3 are alleged to have assaulted the applicant - K.C.Jain '

on 13/10/2000.

It has been alleged that while applicant /victim was performing his //\ i :

@ official duty, he was obstructed, abused, threatened and assaulted. 4.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses.

Thereafter, accused were also examined in respect of incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against them and they denied having committed any offence and stated that they been falsely implicated.

v r 5.

Learned Trial Court acquitted respondents 2 and 3 taking into consideration s i.

that none of the prosecution witnesses, stated to be eye witnesses, have supported ~ prosecution allegation of respondents and assaulting applicant.

$ Accordingly, respondents 2 and 3 have been acquitted. 6.

The grounds raised in revision against acquittal are that though prosecution examined various witnesses, the victim was not summoned. Though the complainant had already informed the Court regarding change of his residential address, the applicant, who was the victim, his non-examination in trial has resulted in grave injustice, as respondents and 3, who according to applicant assaulted him, have been acquitted without examining the applicant as one of the witnesses of the prosecution.

7.

A perusal of the order sheets of the Court below shows that on more than one occasions, summons, followed by bailable warrant were issued to prosecution witnesses and prosecution witnesses except applicant, appeared before the Court and examined.

Order sheet dated 07/06/2005 reveals that summons, which was issued to the applicant was refused to be accepted.

,' Thereafter, bailable warrant was issued followed by warrant of arrest.

However, despite all steps taken by the Trial Court to seek production of the applicant, the applicant was not produced before Court by prosecution and finally, mac

opportunity to lead evidence by the prosecution was closed by the Court below. 8.

In the present case, independent witnesses of the prosecution have been examined.

Those witnesses are Bharatiai (PW1), Bande Thakur (PWZ), Peeiaram (PW3), Divesh Thakur (PW4) and Pitambar (PW5). Ail these witnesses were cited by the prosecution as eye witnesses of the case, however, none of them supported the case of the prosecution.

All the witnesses of the prosecution have stated that no incident took place in their presence. 9.

Taking info consideration that the Trail Court has recorded in the order sheet a that the applicant himself refused to receive the summons and that despite bailable warrant and warr§nt of arrest issued, he was never produced before the Court and s Trial Court, after considering all the above aspects, closed prosecution evidence, l am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 10.

The revision is accordingly dismissed.

sd/4 (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge £epti