MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH V/S ANIRUDDH MUKHERJEE

JABALPUR, India, May 24 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment on April 23:

1. Heard on I.A. No.25481 of 2022, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

On due consideration, the aforesaid application is allowed. The delay of 109 days occurred in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.

This appeal under Section 378(III) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant/State assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.05.2022 passed in Sessions Trial No.1700259 of 2015 (State of M.P. vs. Aniruddh Mukherjee) by the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Katni, District Katni (M.P.), whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 333 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that Constable Brajesh Shukla, posted at Police Outpost Jhijhri, submitted a written report on 19.11.2015 stating therein that on the said date he, along with Head Constable Santosh Singh had gone to arrest a warrantee, namely Aniruddh Mukherjee. At about 01:00 PM, the said warrantee was found on the road in front of the Beetle shop of Naresh Yadav. Upon being informed about the warrant and asked to accompany the police party to the outpost, the accused allegedly snatched the warrant, pushed the Head Constable and attempted to flee; however, he was apprehended on the spot. It is further alleged that due to the push, Constable Brajesh Shukla sustained injuries on his left wrist, knee and waist. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Police Station Madhavnagar registered a First Information Report bearing Crime No. 647 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and commenced investigation.

3. During investigation, the injured was medically examined, a spot map was prepared at the instance of the complainant, and statements of witnesses were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katni, District Katni. Subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Katni, and thereafter transferred to the trial Court. Charges under Sections 333 and 427 of the IPC were framed against the accused, which were read over and explained to him. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial.

4 . In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 06 witnesses, namely Constable Brajesh Shukla (PW-1), Naresh Yadav (PW-2), Manja (PW-3), Santosh Singh (PW-4), Anurag Pathak (PW5) and Dr. Sunita Singh (PW-6) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/29 and Ex.D/1 and Ex.D/48, the documents on record. In defence, the respondent/accused examined Umesh Kumar Namdeo (DW-1), Narendra Mishra (DW-2) and complainant Aniruddh Mukherjee (DW-3) as defence witnesses.

5. Learned trial Court after recording the evidence of both the parties acquitted the present respondents/accused. Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/State has contended that, the respondent has erroneously been acquitted by the learned trial Court despite ample evidence on record in the form of statement of victim namely Constable Brajesh Shukla (PW-1), Santosh Singh (PW-4) and eye witnesses Naresh Yadav (PW-2) and Anurag Pathak (PW-5). The statements of these witnesses is further corroborated by FIR and medical evidence in the shape of statement of Dr. Sunita Singh (PW-6) which establishes the injury on the person of complainant Brajesh Shukla (PW-1).

Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/storage/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2022/CRA/11876/CRA_11876_2022_FinalOrder_23-04-2026_digi.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.