Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
Purushottam @ Pappu – Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.552, 607 of 2015, Criminal Appeal No.1297 of 2017
Decided on : 01-08-2019
Criminal Appeals - Conviction under Section 452 and 394/397 IPC - 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 2000 in default 2 months R.I. and 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000 in default 1 month R.I. - [Sections 452, 394, 397 of I.P.C.] - The court analyzed the identification of the appellants, the seizure of incriminating articles, and the legal principles related to identification parades and dock identification. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the identification of two appellants and the seized articles, leading to their acquittal. However, the court held that the identification of the third appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt based on the F.I.R., ocular evidence, and medical evidence, resulting in his conviction for the offenses under Section 452 and 397 of I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant reported a robbery where she was assaulted and her valuables were stolen. The appellants were convicted for offenses under Sections 452 and 394/397 of I.P.C. The prosecution's case relied on the identification of the appellants and the seizure of incriminating articles.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the identification of two appellants and the seized articles, leading to their acquittal. However, the court held that the identification of the third appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt based on the F.I.R., ocular evidence, and medical evidence, resulting in his conviction for the offenses under Section 452 and 397 of I.P.C.
Issues: The key issues were the identification of the appellants and the seized articles, and the legal principles related to identification parades and dock identification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the substantive evidence is the identification of the accused in court, and the failure to hold a test identification parade does not make the evidence of identification in court inadmissible. The court also highlighted that the weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the courts of fact.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by appellant Ghanshyam and Preetam Dhakad was allowed, and the appeal filed by appellant Purshottam was partially allowed, resulting in his conviction for the offenses under Section 452 and 397 of I.P.C. with modified sentencing.
JUDGMENT :
By a common order, all the three appeals shall be decided as they arise out of the same incident. Since, Ghanshyam and Preetam Dhakad were absconding and were arrested at a later stage, therefore, they have been convicted by separate judgments and sentences.
2. These Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.
3. Cr.A. No. 552 of 2015 has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 27-3-2015 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in S.T. No. 26/2014.
4. Cr.A. No. 1297 of 2015 has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 29-7-2017 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in S.T. No. 26/2014.
5. Cr.A. No. 552 of 2015 has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 12-5-2015 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in S.T. No. 26/2014.
6. All the appellants have been convicted for the following offences :
| 1 | Under Section 452 of I.P.C. | 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 2000 in default 2 months R.I. |
| 2 | Under Section 394/397 IPC | 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000 in default 1 month R.I. |
7. The prosecution story in short is that on 7-11-2013, the complainant Gendi bai lodged a report that she was all alone and was sleeping in the porch of her house. At about 2 A.M. in the night, four persons came there and gagged her mouth by tying a cloth and took out her silver Kade, Silver Khangwari, Gold Tops, Gold ring and also took away Rs. 6000/-. Since the tops were pulled from her ears, therefore, her pinna got injured. The appellant Purshottam assaulted on her face, therefore, her teeth have broken. On this report, the police registered crime No. 280/2013 for offence under Sections 394,452,325 of I.P.C.
8. The police arrested the appellant Purshottam, Ghanshyam, Preetam as well as one Laxminarayan and recovered one gold tops from the possession of the appellant Purshottam, Rs. 6000 from Laxminarayan, Silver Khangwari from Ghanshyam and two silver Kade from Preetam.
9. The police after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet against four persons for offence under Sections 394,452 and 325 of I.P.C..
10. The Trial Court by order dated 23-1-2014 framed charges under Sections 452, 394 read with Section 397 of I.P.C.
11. The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.
12. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined Gendibai (P.W.1), Balram (P.W.2), Govind Prasad Sharma (P.W.3), Dr. A.P. Singh (P.W.4), Madanlal (P.W.5), Sunil Verma (P.W.6), Dr. Vinod Chourasia (P.W.7), Hazarilal (P.W.8), Ramcharan (P.W.9), and Santosh Bhargava (P.W.10). The appellants did not examine any witness in their defence.
13. It appears that after the prosecution evidence was over, the appellants Ghanshyam and Preetam Dhakad did not appear before the Trial Court and accordingly, they were declared absconding by order dated 24-3-2015. The accused statement of Purshottam was recorded on the same day.
14. The Trial Court by judgment dated 27-3-2015 convicted the appellant Purshottam, by judgment dated 29-7-2017 convicted the appellant Preetam Dhakad and by judgment dated 12-5-2015 convicted the appellant Ghanshyam for the above mentioned offences.
15. Challenging the conviction and sentence recorded by the Court below, the Counsel for the appellant Purshottam submitted that although in the F.I.R., the name of the appellant was mentioned but in the Test Identification Parade, the complainant Gendibai (P.W.1) could not identify the appellant Purshottam, although again in dock identification, She has identified the appellant Purshottam, thus identification is doubtful.
16. So far as the identification of the appellants Preetam Dhakad and Ghanshyam is concerned, it is submitted by their Counsel that they were not identified by the complainant Gendibai either in Test Identification Parade or in the dock. Thus, it is submitted that the identification of the appellant Preetam Dhaka
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
