IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
Pradeep Sakhawar – Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and Another – Respondents
MCRC No. 35848 of 2021
Decided On : 25-02-2022
Cr.P.C. - Criminal Appeal - Sections 364/34, 302/34, 201/34 - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) against the judgment dated 29.02.2008 passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore (M.P.) in S.T. No.50/2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced as under: S. No Conviction Sentence Imprisonment Fine amount Additional imprisonment in default of payment of fine 1 302/34 of IPC Life imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 6 months RI 2 364/34 of IPC 10 years RI Rs.2,000/- 3 months RI 3 201/34 of IPC 3 years RI Rs.1,000/- 1 month RI
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 364/34, 302/34, and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced accordingly. The prosecution's case was based on the last seen evidence and the appellant's statements recorded during the trial of a co-accused. The appellant pleaded false implication and abjured his guilt, but the trial court found the prosecution's case proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 364/34 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly. However, the court acquitted the appellant from the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC due to lack of evidence. The fine amount deposited by the appellant under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC was ordered to be refunded to the appellant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's involvement in the crime, the credibility of the last seen evidence, and the admissibility of the appellant's statements recorded during the trial of a co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the last seen evidence and the appellant's statements recorded during the trial of a co-accused to establish the appellant's guilt for the offence punishable under Section 364/34 of IPC. The court also emphasized the lack of evidence for the appellant's involvement in the other offences, leading to his acquittal.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellant was partly allowed, modifying the judgment and order of conviction. The appellant was acquitted from the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC, while the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 364/34 of IPC were affirmed. The fine amount deposited by the appellant under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC was ordered to be refunded to the appellant.
JUDGMENT :
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J.
The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) [in short “Cr.P.C.”] against the judgment dated 29.02.2008 passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore (M.P.) in S.T. No.50/2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) and sentenced as under :
| S. No. | Conviction | Sentence | ||
| Imprisonment | Fine amount | Additional imprisonment in default of payment of fine | ||
| 1 | 302/34 of IPC | Life imprisonment | Rs.10,000/- | 6 months RI |
| 2 | 364/34 of IPC | 10 years RI | Rs.2,000/- | 3 months RI |
| 3 | 201/34 of IPC | 3 years RI | Rs.1,000/- | 1 month RI |
2. Prosecution story, in brief is as follows :-
(ii) During investigation, on 06.10.2005, ASI P. S. Chouhan went to the place of incident, prepared spot map (Exhibit-P/3), recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses and made a search for the dead-body of the deceased Kamal. On 08.10.2005, S.I. Ashok Rangshahi arrested co-accused Sanjay, as per arrest memo (Exhibit-P/7) and appellant Mukesh, as per arrest memo (Exhibit-P/8). He recorded their memorandum statements Exhibit-P/11 and P/10 respectively and thereafter, seized a clutch wire, a broken silver chain, a pearl necklace, a leather purse containing photographs of co-accused Sanjay and deceased's wife Babita alongwith co-accused Sanjay's license and an amount of Rs.170/-cash on their instance from Gajarghas near Ralamandal Hills, Indore as per seizure memo (Exhibit-P/6). On the same day, he also seized a black coloured rubber sandal on the instance of co-accused Sanjay from a place near Talainaka, Mhow Phata as per seizure memo (Exhibit-P/5) and a nylon rope from his house as per seizure memo (Exhibit-P/4). Identification proceeding was conducted as per identification memo (Exhibit-P/10) wherein deceased's brother Ritesh identified the seized broken silver chain and pearl necklace as the articles of deceased alongwith deceased wife's photographs. Search of the body of the deceased was conducted in Narmada river near Mortakka bridge and also at Ralamandal Bawdi but the same was not found. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore who committed the
Amlendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal
Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the burden of proof on the accused, and the significance of motive in establishing guilt were the central legal principles established in the judgment.
The provisions of Section 306(4)(a) of the Cr.P.C. are not attracted if an accused is tendered pardon after the commitment by the Court to which the proceeding is committed in exercise of powers unde....
Secrecy of crime and paucity of evidence, solely for the apprehension of the other offenders, recovery of the incriminating objects and production of the evidence otherwise unobtainable might afford ....
The court ruled that a second application for pardon under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable only on changed circumstances, and recording a confession statement prior to granting pardon is i....
The grant of pardon is within the exclusive domain of the Court and is subject to the condition that the proposed approver makes a full and true disclosure of the circumstances within their knowledge....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.