Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Smt. S.R. Waghmare, J.
Amardeep and another v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2012 (Indore) : against the judgment of
Sixth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ujjain, passed in
Sessions Trial No.297 of 2010; Decided on 19.11.2013.
Held : I find on both points that learned Judge of the trial Court has minutely scrutinized the evidence and although there are discrepancies in the testimony of the material witness they are not so vital, so as the effect the merit of the case. It is not an important fact whether injured Narendra had already crossed Gujrat Palace and was then attacked by the accused or before reaching it. The fact remains that accused appellants were known to the injured witness Narendra and have been named by him in the FIR. Similarly, I find that trial Court has properly scrutinized the evidence and acquitted seven of the accused on the basis of the fact that their presence on the place was not properly established. Secondly it appears as if PW8 Narendra has deliberately not named some of the accused and it can be one of the reasons why he has been declared to be hostile also. Most importantly injured Narendra was a notorious criminal but at the same time an important fact cannot be lost sight of blinked away is that the accused had the ‘mens rea’ or motive to commit murder of Narendra since brother of the accused had initially been murdered by brother of PW8. Narendra and obviously the accused were seeking revenge; falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a principle not available in our jurisprudence. 2007(I) MPWN 98 and 1996(II) MPWN 90 distinguished.
naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 307 && gR;k ds iz;kl dk vfHkdFku && rkfRod lk{kh ds ifjlk{; esa folaxfr;k¡ bruh egRoiw.kZ ugha fd ekeys ds xq.kkxq.k dks izHkkfor djsa && i{kdkjksa ds chp iwoZ ‘k=qrk LFkkfir && fpfdRlk lk{; laiqf”Vdkjh && vijk/k lkfcrA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % nksuksa fcanqvksa ij esjk fu”d”kZ gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fo}ku U;k;k/kh’k us lk{; dh ckjhdh ls laoh{kk dh gS rFkk ;|fi rkfRod lk{kh ds ifjlk{; esa folaxfr;k¡ gSa os bruh egRoiw.kZ ugha gSa fd ekeys ds xq.kkxq.k dks izHkkfor djsaA ;g egRoiw.kZ rF; ugha fd D;k {kfrxzLr ujsanz xqtjkr egy igys&gh ikj dj pqdk Fkk rFkk rc vfHk;qDr }kjk ml ij geyk fd;k x;k ;k ogk¡ igq¡pus ds igysA rF; ‘ks”k jgrk gS fd vfHk;qDr vihykFkhZ {kfrxzLr lk{kh ujsanz ls ifjfpr Fks rFkk izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ esa mlds }kjk mudk uke fn;k x;k FkkA blh izdkj esjk fu”d”kZ gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; us mfpr :i ls lk{; dh laoh{kk dh gS rFkk bl rF; ds vk/kkj ij lkr vfHk;qDrksa dks nks”keqDr fd;k fd LFky ij mudh mifLFkfr mfpr :i ls LFkkfir ugha FkhA nwljs ;g izrhr gksrk gS ekuks v lk 8 ujsanz us tkucw> dj dqN vfHk;qDrksa dk uke ugha fn;k rFkk ,d dkj.k ;g gks ldrk gS tks fd mls i{knzksgh Hkh ?kksf”kr fd;k x;kA lokZf/kd egRoiw.kZ :i ls {kfrxzLr ujsanz dq[;kr vijk/kh Fkk ijarq mlh le; ftl egRoiw.kZ rF; dks vuns[kk ugha fd;k tk ldrk og ;g gS fd vfHk;qDr dks ujsanz dh gR;k djus dk ^^nqjk’k;** ;k gsrq Fkk D;ksafd izkjaHk esa v lk 8 ujsanz ds HkkbZ }kjk vfHk;qDr ds HkkbZ dh gR;k dh xbZ Fkh rFkk Li”V :i ls vfHk;qDr cnys dh bZIlk dj jgk Fkk( ^^,d ckr esa feF;k rks lc esa feF;k** ,slk fl)kar gS tks gekjs fof/k’kkL= esa miyC/k ugha gSA 2007¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 98 rFkk 1996¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 90 izHksfnrA
1. By this appeal under section 374 of the CrPC filed the accused-appellants have challenged the judgment dated 30.11.2011 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Ujjain, in Sessions Trial No.297/2010 convicting the accused-appellants for offence under section 307 of the IPC and sentencing him to seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo additional sentence of six months. The accused was convicted for offence under section 25-1(1B)(A), Arms Act and he was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo additional sentence of three months.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Narendra and Sadanand Pasi recorded the dehati nalishi that they were residing at Jabaran Colony under jurisdiction of Police Station Neelganga. When he was going by motorcycle at 10:00 a.m. in the morning on 14.10.2010, near the Gadhapuliya towards Dewasgate he was accosted by present appellants Amardeep and Deepak, who were accompanied by 3 and 4 peoples on motorcycle. Due to previous enmity the complainant was afraid, and speeded up his motorcycle and on reaching near Gujrat Palace the accused came in front of the motorcycle and stopped him and hurled abuses and Goutam, Jeetu and Banti shouted/exhorted that he should be shot; whereupon, accused Amardeep and Deepak took out their pistols (Katta) and fired, as a result of which the complainant Narendra received gun shot injuries in his left leg and right hand as well as stomach. He tried to speed up the motorcycle when Umesh, Banti, Sagar and Yogi caught hold his motorcycle and from behind Dharmendra and Rajju his companions started shouting, and hence the accused fled away on the motorcycle towards Gadhapuliya, whereas the injured complainant went towards Railway Station. The police at the Railway Station saw him in bleeding condition and took him to the hospital. In fact the entire enmity was due to the fact that the brother of the complainant named Kamal had been killed by accused Amardeep and others. So also in the same dispute Amardeep’s brother Rupesh had also been killed and it was due to this enmity that Amardeep, Banti and Sagar had with the common intention and armed with guns tried to murder the complainant Narendra. The FIR was lodged at the police station and offence was registered at Crime No.201/2010. The Inspector Ajit Tiwari (PW16) recorded the dehati nalishi as Ex.P-8 on the statement of injured complainant Narendra. On the basis of this dehati nalishi the FIR was lodged at Crime No.201/2010 and offence under sections 307, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC read with sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered. Reaching the spot on the instruction of Dharmendra PW11, the spot map Ex.P-9 was prepared. The bullets which were recovered from the body of the complainant Narendra PW8 were received from Patidar Hospital and duly sealed. The sample of blood strains and simple earth was recovered vide Ex.P-23 and statement of other witnesses like Dharmendra PW11, Sonabai PW9 and Ajju PW10 were also recorded. On completion of investigation accused Amardeep, Ramesh, Goutam, Umesh, Yogesh and Sagar were arrested. From the accused Amardeep pistol was recovered as Ex.P-21 and from the house of accused Deepak motorcycle Hero Honda Passion Plus was recovered which indicated that motorcycle actually purchased by accused Amardeep who was its real owner. The recovered weapons were sent to the FSL Sagar and consent was sought from the Magistrate vide Ex.P-13. That from injured Narendra clothes and other articles such as the pistol along with six rounds were sent for FSL, Sagar as Ex.P-13. The accused were duly arrested and committed to their trial.
3. The accused abjured their guilt and submitted that they were falsely implicated in the matter. The trial Court on considering the evidence however convicted sentenced the accused as he
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
