Back
High Court of Madhya Pradesh
G. S. Ahluwalia, Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, JJ.
RAMCHARAN & ORS. - APPELLANTS
Versus
STATE OF M. P. - RESPONDENT
Cri. Appeal Nos. 192 of 2010 and 353 of 2014
Decided On : 21-12-2021
The court examined the evidence presented by the prosecution and found several inconsistencies and discrepancies. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants were guilty of the charges against them. The court also held that the trial court erred in convicting the appellants of certain charges and acquitted them of those charges. The court further held that the trial court did not err in acquitting the respondents of the charges against them.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved multiple appellants and respondents who were charged with various offenses, including abduction, extortion, and possession of illegal weapons. The prosecution presented evidence, including witness testimony, medical records, and seizure reports, to support its case. The trial court convicted some of the appellants and acquitted others.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants were guilty of the charges against them. The court also held that the trial court erred in convicting the appellants of certain charges and acquitted them of those charges. The court further held that the trial court did not err in acquitting the respondents of the charges against them.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants were guilty of the charges against them; Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants of certain charges and acquitting them of those charges; Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondents of the charges against them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants were guilty of the charges against them because the evidence presented by the prosecution was inconsistent and unreliable. The court also held that the trial court erred in convicting the appellants of certain charges and acquitting them of those charges because the trial court failed to properly consider all of the evidence presented. The court further held that the trial court did not err in acquitting the respondents of the charges against them because the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to support its case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal filed by the appellants and dismissed the appeal filed by the state. The court also acquitted the appellants of the charges against them and discharged their bail bonds.
JUDGMENT G. S. AHLUWALIA J. : – By this common judgment, Cr.A. No. 192 of 2010 filed by Ramcharan and ors. vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 192 of 2010) State of M.P. vs. Ramcharan and ors. (Cr.A. No. 353 of 2014) 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 11/13 of MPDVPK Act | 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/- in default 3 months R.I. |
| Siddhar (Appellant No.2) | 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. |
| Kamarlal @ Bhindua (Appellant No.4) | 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 mem
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.
The judgment establishes that the reliability of witness identification is crucial in criminal cases, and any doubts regarding the identification process can lead to acquittal.
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
