Back
2011 Supreme(MP) 1020
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT GWALIOR BENCH
T.K.Kaushal, J.
Satyendra Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 564-2003
Decided On : 14-03-2011
Appearances :Mr.B.S.Bhadoriya, Advocate for the Appellant, Mr.R.K.Shrivastava.Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/State.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient proof and legal evidence to support convictions under specific sections of the IPC, and the importance of considering the nature of the injury and the evidence of witnesses in reaching a decision.
Headnote:
Dacoity - Theft - IPC 394, 398, 307/34 and MPDVPK Adhiniyam, 1981 - [IPC 394, 398, 307/34, MPDVPK Adhiniyam, 1981] - The court discussed the nature of the injuries, the evidence of witnesses, and the legal evidence of recovery of the stolen tractor. It highlighted the lack of sufficient proof and legal evidence of recovery, leading to the appellant being entitled to the benefit of doubt under certain sections of the IPC. The court set aside the convictions under certain sections and instead convicted the appellant under a different section of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under various sections of the IPC and the MPDVPK Adhiniyam, 1981 for theft of a tractor and causing injury by gun shot. The appellant appealed against the conviction, citing improper appreciation of evidence and contradictory prosecution witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the nature of the injury was not proved to be grievous or dangerous to life, and the evidence of witnesses and legal evidence of recovery were insufficient to support the original convictions. The appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt under certain sections of the IPC, and the convictions under certain sections were set aside. Instead, the appellant was convicted under a different section of the IPC and sentenced accordingly.
Issues: Improper appreciation of evidence, contradictory prosecution witnesses, and the sufficiency of legal evidence of recovery.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the lack of sufficient proof and legal evidence of recovery, leading to the appellant being entitled to the benefit of doubt under certain sections of the IPC. The nature of the injury and the evidence of witnesses were also crucial in the court's decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the convictions under certain sections and instead convicting the appellant under a different section of the IPC.
The appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 16th September, 2003 in Special Case No. 121/01 passed by Shri J.M. Chaturvedi, Special Judge (Dacoit), Bhind convicting the appellant under Sections 394, 398 and 307/34 of IPC and Section 11/13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Vyapharan Avam Prabhavit Kshctra Adhiniyam, 1981 (in short "the Adhiniyam of 1981") for theft of tractor No. M.P. 30-M/2072 of complainant Gajendra Singh (P.W.1) for having armed with gun and injured him on his life by gun shot, sentencing him to imprisonment for seven years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default six months' R.I. respectively. However, no separate conviction and sentence is imposed under the MPDVPK Adhiniyam.
2. Facts in short, are that in the intervening night of 24-7-2001 at about 2.00 hrs. in Village Kishore Singh Ka Pura, Gajendra Singh (P.W.1) awaken on hearing sound of tractor started by somebody. Me came out of his room and saw one person driving the tractor and another was sitting over it for taking it away. While objecting, a gun shot was fired which hit on the left leg of Gajendra Singh (P.W.1). He was sent for medical examination. Dr. A.K. Choudhary (P.W.13) vide M.L.C. report (Exh. P-13) examined him.
3. On hearing the shriek of Gajendra Singh (P.W. 1), his father Narayan Singh (P.W.6), his brother Rajesh Singh alias Brahma Prakash (P.W.5), neighbours Shyamlal Singh (P.W.2) and Tularam Singh (P.W.7) also reached there. Tractor has been taken by miscreants towards Umri. Gajendra Singh (P.W.1) was taken to Police Station, Umri (District Bhind) At about 3.00 hrs. in the midnight he lodged the FIR against two unknown persons. Police registered case at Crime No. 107/01 only under Sections 394 and 307/34 of IPC against the unknown persons. At the same time Prahlad Singh (P.W.4), Rajesh Singh alias Brahma Prakash (P.W.5) and Tularam (P.W.7) went on a scooter to search the miscreants. They saw them but being afraid of gun they came back.
4. During investigation on 16-8-2001 vide Exh. P-8 Police Umri prepared a formal seizure memo of tractor, which was seized by Police Station, Sahso (Uttar Pradesh), in connection with Crime No. 25/01 under Sections 302, 307 of IPC and 30, 27 of the Arms Act. After completion of investigation, Police U.mri, citing 17 witnesses, submitted charge-sheet under Sections 394, 307 and 398 of IPC and Section 11/13 of the MPDVPK Adhiniyam against appellant and another.
5. Trial Court framed charges under Section 394, IPC read with Section 11/13, MPDVPK, 1981, and under Section 307/34, IPC. Accused person abjured guilt.
6. Defence of the appellants in the Trial Court was that of false implication on account of enmity.
7. To substantiate the case of prosecution, statements of Gajendra Singh (P.W.1), Shyamlal Singh (P.W.2), Udai Narayan (P.W.3), Prahlad Singh (P.W.4), Rajesh S(P.W.5), Narayan Singh (P.W.6), Tularam Singh (P.W.7), Dharmendra Singh (P.W.8), Guddu Singh (Puthu Singh) (P.W. 9), Rituraj Singh (P.W.10), Dinesh Narain Dixit (P.W.11), Umesh Babu (P.W.12), Dr. A.K. Choudhary (P.W.13), Sanjeevan Nayan Sharma (P.W.14), Bhanu Pratap Singh (P.W.15) and Rakesh Sahu (P.W.16) were recorded. To substantiate the defence, statements of Satyendra Singh (D.W.1) and Omkar Singh (D.W.2) were also recorded.
8. Appreciating the aforesaid evidence, the learned Trial Court, giving him benefit of doubt, acquitted the accused Omkar Singh, however, convicted and sentenced the appellant as above.
9. This appeal has been preferred on the ground that appreciation of evidence is not proper prosecution witnesses are contradictory. On the basis of same set of evidence, Trial Court has acquitted co-accused Omkar Singh, so on the basis of that evidence conviction and sentence of appellant is not sustainable.
10. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer supported the finding of conviction and sentence both.
11. Dr. A.K. Choudhary (P.W.13) stated that on 24-7-2001 at District Hospital, Bhind he examined Gajendra Singh s/o Narayan
