Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
TEJ SHANKAR
SUKHLAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 186 Of 1992
Decided On : 09/26/1997
CRIMINAL APPEAL - PREPARATION TO COMMIT DACOITY - ASSEMBLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING DACOITY - ARMS ACT - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - [SECTIONS 399, 402, 25 IPC, 39 ARMS ACT] - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE SET ASIDE - APPELLANTS ACQUITTED.
Fact of the Case:
Five appellants were convicted and sentenced for preparation to commit dacoity, assembly for the purpose of committing dacoity, and possession of arms without a license. They appealed the convictions, arguing that the prosecution case was concocted, the evidence was unreliable, and the sanction for prosecution under the Arms Act was not obtained.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offenses under Sections 399 and 402 IPC, as there was no evidence that the accused had assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity or had taken any steps in preparation for such an offense. The court also found that the prosecution failed to comply with the requirements of the law regarding the recovery of weapons and the arrest of the accused, and that the accused could not be prosecuted under Section 25 of the Arms Act without the prior sanction of the District Magistrate, which was not obtained.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established the essential ingredients of the offenses under Sections 399 and 402 IPC. 2. Whether the prosecution had complied with the requirements of the law regarding the recovery of weapons and the arrest of the accused. 3. Whether the accused could be prosecuted under Section 25 of the Arms Act without the prior sanction of the District Magistrate.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The essential ingredients of the offenses under Sections 399 and 402 IPC are: (a) for Section 399, the act of the accused must amount to preparation to commit dacoity, and (b) for Section 402, the assembly of five or more persons must be for the purpose of committing dacoity. 2. The prosecution failed to establish these ingredients, as there was no evidence that the accused had assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity or had taken any steps in preparation for such an offense. 3. The prosecution failed to comply with the requirements of the law regarding the recovery of weapons and the arrest of the accused, as there was no evidence that the arresting officer had given his own search before making a search of the accused, that a receipt was given for the articles seized, or that the arrest and seizure were made before independent persons. 4. The accused could not be prosecuted under Section 25 of the Arms Act without the prior sanction of the District Magistrate, as required by Section 39 of the Act, and there was no evidence that such sanction was obtained.
Final Decision: The court set aside the convictions and sentences of the appellants and acquitted them of all charges.
( 1 ) ACCUSED Sukhalal and Gyansingh (appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 158/92), Amolsingh (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 165/92) and Hanumantsingh and Govindsingh (appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 186/92) have been convicted and sentenced under Section 399, I. P. C. to a term of 5 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine another term of 11/2 year was awarded and under Section 402, I. P. C. to a term of 3 years R. I. and under Section 402, I. P. C. to a term of three years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine another terms of one year R. I. was awarded and appellants Amolsingh, Hanumantsingh, Sukhlal and Gyansingh were further convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act to a term of one year by Shri G. N. Goyal, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore, district Shivpuri, by order dated 8-7- 1992. Out of these persons accused Gyansingh has died and his appeal has abated, vide order dateds 13-10-1995.
( 2 ) THE prosecution stroy leading to the conviction of the appellants as unfolded from the material on record is that PW 7 R. V. Sharma, the then officer-in-charge P. S. Khaniadhana got an infomation from an informant on 21-2-1990 which was entered in Rojnamcha at Item No. 561 date 21-2-1960 and on the basis of that information he along with SDO (P) PW 4 Bhagwatsing Chauhan, PW 1 S. I. Ramrajsingh Tomar, PW 3 M. L. Sharma, AIS R. P. Tiwari and other members of the Force proceeded on police vehicle for near Devrani Jethani Toria and they reached there. Shri Bhagwatsingh Chauhan, SDO (P) Pichhore gave instructions and according to his instructions the members of the force were divided into three parties, one of the parties was led by the SDO (P) himself, the second party by senior S. O. Bamor Kala and the third by R. B. Sharma himself. The parties went into hiding and after some time they heard Badmashes talking that Siyaram Yadav had sold his land and dacoity be carried out in his house. The time had arrived. They should move ahead. When the Badmashes came nearer the party SDO (P) threw a challenge and asked the Badmashes to stop whereupon they started running. In the meantime the party of Shri Sharma with the help of party Nos. 1 and 2 caught hold of all the five Badmashes who gave their names as Hanumant Singh, Amolsingh, Sukhlal, Gyansingh and Govind. All of them were arrested at the spot. Hanumant Singh had a 12 bore SBL gun No. 23884 and 9 live cartridges. Amolsingh had SBL topidar gun and in a bag 100 gm of gun powder, 10 topies and 10 pellets. Sukhlal had a country made Katta in which there was one round and 2 live cartridges Gyansingh had 12 bore country made Katta in which there was one round and one live cartridge and Govind Gadariya had a lathi in his hand. These articles were seized before Panches. Usual investigation had taken place but it is not clear from the material on record as to who had conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet. However, charge-sheet was submitted against accused persons. All the accused persons denied the charge. Accused Sukhlal and Gyansingh (now deceased) alleged that they were implicated on account of enmity. Accused Govind claimed that he was implicated on the assertion that previous dacoits Shivram and Umrao false (sic ). Hanumant Singh claimed that he was arrested from his house before Jasrath. He had sown his crop which was harvested by dacoits. Amolsingh claimed that he was falsely got implicated by Shivram and his crop was got harvested. He was arrested from Imliya before Ramdas.
( 3 ) THE prosecution examined PW 1 Ramrajsingh Tomar, the then officer-in-charge of P. S. Bamor Kala, PW 2 Nisar Ahmad who was head constable on 22-2-1990 at P. S. Khaniadhana, PW 3 M. L. Sharma, the then A. S. I. P. S. Bamor Kala, PW 4 Bhagwantsingh Chauhan, the then SDO (P) Pichhore, PW 5 Shravan Kumar, the then Reader to S. D. O. who were all alleged to be members of the parties. PW 6 Siyaram has also been examined in whose hous
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
