IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, JJ.
Manoj Sen – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2012
Decided On : 07-07-2022
Criminal Appeal - Conviction for Offences under IPC and Arms Act - 302 of IPC, 25(1)(1-B)(a) and 27 of Arms Act - The court discussed the circumstances of the case, including the prompt lodging of the FIR, the evidence of the witnesses, and the FSL report, and affirmed the conviction of the appellant for the mentioned offences.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for offences under IPC and Arms Act for causing the death of the deceased by firing a gunshot. The incident took place at night, and the complainant promptly lodged the FIR within 10 minutes of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the witnesses credible and reliable, supported by the prompt lodging of the FIR and the FSL report, and affirmed the conviction of the appellant for the mentioned offences.
Issues: The issues involved the credibility of the witnesses, the prompt lodging of the FIR, and the evidence from the FSL report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the quality of evidence over the quantity of witnesses, and relied on the prompt lodging of the FIR and the FSL report to affirm the conviction of the appellant.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for offences under IPC and Arms Act and upheld the sentence of life imprisonment.
JUDGMENT
G.S. Ahluwalia, J. - This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 17/11/2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Datia in Sessions Trial No.87/2011, thereby convicting the appellant for the following offences:-
| Conviction U/s | Sentence | Fine | Default (in lieu of fine) |
| 302 of IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.5,000/- | 3 months SI |
| 25(1)(1-B)(a) of Arms Act | 1 year | Rs.1,000/- | 1 month SI |
| 27 of Arms Act | 3 years RI | Rs.1,000/- | 1 month SI |
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 25/3/2011, at about 11:15 in the night, the complainant Shyam Kumar Tiwari, his younger brother Rammohan Tiwari (deceased), Laxman Purohit and Balveer Thakur were returning back from the house of their relative Anand Belpatri. As soon as they passed in front of Supermarket and came near the shop of Manoj Sen, it is alleged that Manoj Sen was standing there alongwith two unknown persons. After looking at the deceased Rammohan Tiwari, the appellant-Manoj Sen took out a .315 bore country made pistol and fired a gunshot hitting on the chest of deceased Rammohan Tiwari, as a result, he fell down. The unknown person also took out a country made pistol and threatened that in case if anybody dares to come forward, then he too will be killed and thereafter, all the three accused persons ran away towards Talaiya Mohalla. The incident was witnessed by Laxman Purohit, Balveer Thakur, Sangram Singh etc. The complainant Shyam Kumar Tiwari found that Rammohan Tiwari had already died. It was alleged that some money dispute was going on between the deceased and the appellant-Manoj Sen. The appellant-Manoj Sen was to refund Rs.30,000/- to the deceased Ram Mohan Tiwari and only on this issue, the appellant killed Ram Mohan Tiwari by shooting him down. The complainant Shyam Kumar Tiwari after leaving his companions on the place of incident, immediately rushed to the police station Kotwali and lodged FIR at 11:25 in the night. The offence was registered and the Investigating Officer Satish Dubey reached on the spot at 11:55 and prepared the spot map. Safina form was issued and Lash Panchnama was prepared. A requisition for postmortem was sent to Civil Hospital Datia. The blood stained and plain earth was seized. The postmortem report was given and the bullet which was found stuck in the thoracolumbar vertebra was taken out as well as the blood stained t-shirt and banyan of the deceased were sealed and handed over to the police constable. The statements of the witnesses were recorded.
On 28/3/2011, Manoj Sen was arrested. A country made pistol as well as a fired cartridge and one more live round were seized from the possession of the appellant. The country made pistol and cartridge were examined by the Armourer. Permission to prosecute the appellant under Arms Act was obtained. The ballistic as well as FSL report were obtained. A copy of the FIR was sent to the Court, Datia and after completing the investigation, police filed the charge-sheet for offence under Sections 302/34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.
3. It is not out of place to mention here that remaining two unknown persons could not be traced and the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant only.
4. On 28/7/2011 the Trial Court framed charges under Section 302 of IPC and under Sections 25()1(1-B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act.
5. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.
6. The prosecution examined Sonilal (PW-1), Dr. Pradeep Upadhyay (PW-2), Tirisuyas Lakda (PW-3), Vinod Bansal (PW-4), Hotam Singh (PW-5), Shyam Kumar (PW-6), Sangram Singh (PW-7) and Satish Dubey (PW-8).
7. The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.
8. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment and sentence has convicted the appellant for the above-mentioned offence.
9. Challengi
Bipin Kumar Mondal vs. State of W.B. (2010) 12 SCC 91 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 150
Dahari and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Himanshu vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 2 SCC 36 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 593
Jarnail Singh and another vs. State of Haryana
Kirpal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Krishnan and another vs. State represented by Inspector of Police
Manga alias Man Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand
Namdeo vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 14 SCC 150 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 773
Onkar vs. State of U.P. (2012) 2 SCC 273 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 646
Rameshwar vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1952 SC 54 : 1952 Cri LJ 547)
Ranjit Singh vs. State of M.P. (2011) 4 SCC 336 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 227 : AIR 2011 SC 255
S.P.S. Rathore vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another
Satpal Singh vs. State of Haryana
State of A.P. vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao (2008) 15 SCC 582 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1123
State of H.P. vs. Raghubir Singh (1993) 2 SCC 622 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 674)
State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990) 1 SCC 550 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 210)
State of Orissa vs. Thakara Besra (2002) 9 SCC 86 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1080)
State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 316)
State of U.P. vs. Harban Sahai and others
State of U.P. vs. Pappu (2005) 3 SCC 594 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 780)
Wahid Khan v.State of M.P. (2010) 2 SCC 9 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1208)
The quality of evidence and prompt lodging of the FIR are crucial in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
The court established that eyewitness testimony from related witnesses can be credible and sufficient for conviction, provided it is consistent and corroborated by other evidence, and that the absenc....
The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to substantial doubts regarding the credibility of witness testimo....
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.