Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia and Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava,JJ.
Ramcharan & Others v. State of M. P.
Criminal Appeals No. 192 of 2010 and 353 of 2014 (Gwalior): against the judgment and sentence dated 11.1.2010 passed by the Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Shivpuri in Special Sessions Trial No.60/2009; Decided on 21.10.2021
(1) Arms Act, 1959 -- S. 25(1B) (b) -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 27 -- seizure -- no explanation about who sealed guns -- stated that after sanction for prosecution, guns were re-sealed, but they were received in Court in open condition -- burden to explain this lapse on prosecution -- failed -- also failed to explain where gun powder and pellets were kept after removing them from guns -- prosecution failed to prove seizure of guns -- conviction set aside. Paras 31 & 32
(2) Words and Phrases -- "dehatinalishi" -- is written when information is received by police at place other than police station
-- there after, it is sent to police station where it is registered as FIR. [Para 43
(3) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 157 -- sending copy of FIR to Magistrate -- delay -- although mere delay may not be fatal,but if facts of case are considered, delay of 24 hours in sending copy of FIR gives deep dent to prosecution story. (2006) 10 SCC 432, (2003) 4 SCC 128 and 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 372 followed. [Para 75
(4) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 9 -- Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 54A -- identification -- is a relevant fact -- Court can direct accused to submit himself for identification u/s. 54A of CrPC. (2010) 6 SCC 1, 2019 (1) JLJ 373(SC) and (2014) 12 SCC 133 followed. [Para 79
(5) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 9 -- identification -- identification of accused in Court establishes identity of accused but to seek conviction, prosecution has to prove other allegations either by leading direct evidence or circumstantial evidence -- mere identification would not establish his guilt. [Para 79
(6) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 364A -- M. P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 -- Ss. 11/13 -- lodging of dehatinalishi under doubt -- delay of 24 hours in sending copy of FIR to Special Judgedents prosecution story -- prosecution failed to prove that abductees were ever abducted, ransom amount was demanded and paid -- mere identification in TIP or in dock would not lead to inference that appellant committed offence -- suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take place of proof -- acquitted. [Para 80
(7) Appeal -- scope -- two views possible -- trial Court took view favouring accused -- should not be disturbed only on ground that another view was possible.(2010) 3 SCC 381 and (2010) 13 SCC 657 followed. [Para 90
¼1½ vk;q/k vf/kfu;e] 1959 && èkkjk 25¼1[k½ ¼[k½ && lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 27 && vfHkxzg.k && bl ckjs esa dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ugha fd canwdsa fdlus eqgjcan dha && dfFkr fd vfHk;kstu dh eatwjh ds i'pkr~ canwdsa iqu% eqgjcan dh xbZa] ijarq og U;k;ky; esa [kqyh voLFkk esa izkIr gqb± && bl pwd dk Li"Vhdj.k nsus dk Hkkj vfHk;kstui{k ij && vlQy && ;g Li"Vhdj.k nsus esa Hkh vlQy fd canwdksa ls ck:n vkSj xksfy;k¡ fudykus ds i'pkr~ dgk¡ j[ks x, && vfHk;kstui{k canwdksa dk vfHkxzg.k lkfcr djus esa vlQy && nks"kflf) vikLrA ¼iSjk 31 ,oa 32
¼2½ 'kCn rFkk okD;ka'k && ßnsgkrh ukfy'khÞ && rc fy[kh tkrh gS tc iqfyl dks bfÙkyk iqfyl Fkkus ls brj fdlh vU; LFkku ij izkIr gksrh gS && rRi'pkr~ og iqfyl Fkkus izsf"kr dh tkrh gS tgk¡ mls izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ ds :i esa jftLVªhÑr fd;k tkrk gSA ¼iSjk 43
¼3½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && èkkjk 157 && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dh izfr eftLVªsV dks izsf"kr djuk && foyac && ;|fi ek= foyac ?kkrd ugha] rFkkfir ekeys ds rF;ksa ij fopkj fd;k tk, rks izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dh izfr izsf"kr djus esa 24 ?kaVs ds foyac ls vfHk;kstui{k dh dgkuh dks xgjk vk?kkr ig¡qprk gSA ¼2006½10 ,l lh lh 432] ¼2003½4 ,l lh lh 128 rFkk 1994 lIyh& ¼2½ ,l lh lh 372 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 75
¼4½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && èkkjk 9 && naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 54d && 'kuk[r && lqlaxr r; gS && U;k;ky; naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 54d ds v/khu vfHk;qDr dks 'kuk[r ds fy, Lo;a dks izLrqr djus dk funs'k ns ldrk gSA ¼2010½6 ,l lh lh 1] 2019¼1½ ts ,y ts 373 ¼mPpre U;k& rFkk ¼2014½12 ,l lh lh 133 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 79
¼5½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && èkkjk 9 && 'kuk[r && U;k;ky; esa vfHk;qDr dh 'kuk[r ls vfHk;qDr dh igpku fl) gksrh gS ijarq nks"kflf) ds fy, vfHk;kstui{k dks izR;{k lk{; ;k fQj ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; is'k dj vU; vfHkdFku lkfcr djuk gksrs gSa && 'kuk[r ek= ls mldk nks"k fl) ugha gksxkA ¼iSjk 79
¼6½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && èkkjk 364d && e-iz- MdSrh vkSj O;igj.k izHkkfor {ks= vf/kfu;e] 1981 && /kkjk 11@13 && nsgkrh ukfy'kh nkf[ky fd;k tkuk lafnXèk && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dh izfr fo'ks"k U;k;k/kh'k dks izsf"kr djus esa 24 ?kaVs ds foyac ls vfHk;kstui{k dh dgkuh dks vk?kkr && vfHk;kstui{k lkfcr djus esa vlQy fd viâr O;fDr;ksa dk dHkh vigj.k gqvk] fQjkSRkh dh jde dh ek¡x dh xbZ vkSj lank; fd;k x;k && 'kuk[r ijsM ijh{kk esa ;k dB?kjs esa 'kuk[r fd, tkus ek= ls ;g vuqeku ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd vihykFkhZ us vijk/k fd;k && lansg fdruk Hkh izcy D;ksa u gks] lcwr dk LFkku ugha ys ldrk && nks"keqäA¼iSjk 80
¼7½ vihy && O;fDr && nks n`f"Vdks.k laHko && fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vfHk;qDr ds i{k esa n`f"Vdks.k viuk;k && ek= bl vk/kkj ij fo{kqC/k ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg, fd ,d vU; n`f"Vdks.k laHko FkkA ¼2010½3 ,l lh lh 381 rFkk ¼2010½13 ,l lh lh 657 vuqlfjrA¼iSjk 90
JUDGMENT
Ahluwalia J.-- 1. By this common judgment, Cr.A. No.192 of 2010 filed by appellants and Cr.A. No.353 of 2014 filed by the State shall be disposed of.
2. Both the Criminal Appeals have been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 11.1.2010 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act) Shivpuri in Special Sessions Trial No.60/2009 by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the following offences :
| Name of Appellant | Conviction | Sentence |
| Vijay (Appellant No.3) | Under section 364-A of IPC read with section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act | Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default 3 months R.I. |
|
| Under section 323 of IPC | 3 months R.I. and fine of Rs.500 in default 15 days R.I. |
|
| Under section 25(1- B)(a) of Arms Act read with section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act | 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/- in default 3 months R.I. |
| Ramcharan (Appellant No.1) | Under section 25(1- B)(a) of Arms Act read with section | 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/- in default 3 months |
| R.I. | 11/13 of MPDVPK Act |
|
| Siddhar (Appellant No.2) | Under section 25(1- B)(a) of Arms Act read with section | 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/- in default 3 months |
| R.I. | 11/13 of MPDVPK Act |
|
| Kamarlal @ Bhindua 3 years R.I. and fine | Under section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act read with section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act | 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/- in default 3 months R.I. |
3. It is not out of place to mention here that apart from appellants, Suresh was also tried but he has been acquitted in toto and accordingly, the State has filed Criminal Appeal No.353/2014 against the acquittal of the following persons :
| Name of Person | Acquittal under section |
| Ramcharan (Appellant No.1) | Under section 364-A of I.P.C. read with section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and under section 323 of IPC |
| Siddhar (Appellant No.2) | Under section 364-A of I.P.C.read with section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and under section 323 of IPC |
| Kamarlal @ Bhindua (Appellant No.4) | Under section 364-A of I.P.C. read with section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and under section 323 of IPC |
| Suresh son of Shanker resident of village Sesaipura, Distt. Sheopur | Under section 364-A of I.P.C. read with section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act, under section 323 of IPC and under section 25(1-B(b) of Arms Act. |
4. The prosecution story in short is that on 25.3.2009, Mahesh, Narayan, Patiram and Durga Prasad were going on bullock cart to take wheat husk. At 10:30, they reached in the forest area of Sankare ke Chak. At that time, 4 miscreants surrounded them and started assaulting them by lathi and handles of gun. On query, Durgaprasad introduced himself as a labourer, whereas Mahesh, Narayan and Patiram disclosed their correct names and addresses. Accordingly, the miscreants caught hold of Mahesh, Narayan and Patiram and forced them to sit near Sankare ki River. Durga Prasad was released with an instruction, that an amount of Rs. 60,000/- be paid for release of Mahesh, Narayan and Patiram. A threat was also extended that in case, if police is informed then the hostages shall be killed. Three miscreants were having guns whereas one was having sword. When Durga Prasad was going back, then he met with K.C. Chauhan, S.H.O., to whom the entire incident was narrated. On his information, Dehati Nalishi was recorded and accordingly, F.I.R. was lodged.
5. Thereafter, S.H.O. went to the spot and prepared spot map. In the meanwhile, Mangilal, Ram Singh contacted miscreants along with money. They met with miscreants in the forest and an amount of Rs.52,000/- was given and accordingly, the hostages Mahesh, Narayan and Patiram were released. When they were coming back, they met with S.H.O. Chharch and accordingly, recovery memo was prepared. They were sent for
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged.
The prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural irregularities in identification parades.
The appellate court must respect the trial court's credibility assessments unless found to be perverse, while overturning acquittals requires strong evidence and cannot merely rely on the possibility....
The court emphasized that lack of essential documentation and procedural compliance invalidates the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused who were convicted of kidnapping for ra....
Point of Law : Test identification report do not constitute substantive evidence and its corroboration from the surrounding circumstance is required.
(1) Conviction in a criminal trial is required to be certain and not doubtful. Burden of proof of guilt of accused is upon prosecution. It must stand by itself. (2) Cr.P.C does not oblige investigati....
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
