The judgment emphasizes the importance of thoroughly analyzing witness testimonies, considering contradictions, and ensuring strict compliance with the law in using police statements for contradiction.

JUDGMENT

Per G.S. Ahluwalia J. - This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 2-6-2010 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Gwalior in Special Sessions Trial No. 161/2002, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the following offences :

All the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The prosecution story in short is that on 11-9-2002, Sobaran Singh Yadav, lodged a Dehati Nalishi that he is the resident of village Amardha. He was going towards Nayagaon. On the way he saw the dead bodies of Kartar Yadav, who is the brother of Sultan Singh and Punjab son of Khyali Baghele. Both the dead persons are known to him as his relatives are also residing in Ramnagar and Manikpur is adjoining to Ramnagar. One letter each was kept on the cloths of both the dead bodies. From the contents of these letters it appears that these persons have been shot dead by Dayaram Gadariya, Rambabu Gadariya, Prakash Gadariya, Sobaran Gadariya, Vijay Singh Gadariya (appellant), as it is specifically written by the dacoits in the letter that the deceased persons were informer of the police and they have got their brother Vijay Singh killed at the hands of the police. The dead bodies are having multiple gun shot injuries and lot of blood has lost. These murders have been committed in a most planned manner which will be disclosed at a later stage after getting information about it.

3. On this information, the police registered the F.I.R. for offence under Sections 302,147,148,149 of I.P.C., under Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, and under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act against the appellant and Dayaram Gadariya, Rambabu Gadariya, Sobaran and Prakash Baghel and others.

4. The police issued notice under Section 175 of Cr.P.C. to the witnesses and prepared Lash Panchnama. Two letters were seized from the bodies of each of the deceased. The dead bodies of the deceased Kartar and Punjab Singh were sent for post-mortem. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The appellant was arrested on 25-6-2007 i.e., after 5 years of incident. A memorandum was recorded, in which the appellant informed the gun used by him has already been seized in another case. The police after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the appellant for offence under Sections 302,147,148,149 of I.P.C., under Section 25/27 of Arms Act and under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.

5. The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 147,148, 302/149 of I.P.C., under Section 25(1-B) of Arms Act and under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.

6. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.

7. The prosecution examined Bhoop Singh (P.W.1), Sughar Singh (P.W.2), Munshi Singh Yadav (P.W. 3), Sultan Singh (P.W.4), Balkar Singh Yadav (P.W.5), Tahsildar Singh Baghel (P.W.6), Ved Prakash (P.W. 7), Harimohan Sharma (P.W.8), Shriram Sharma (P.W.9), Navab Singh (P.W.10), Dr. J.N. Soni (P.W.11) and Pradeep Sharma (P.W. 12).

8. The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.

9. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment and sentence has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the above mentioned offences.

10. Challenging the impugned judgment passed by the Court below, it is submitted that the Court below has failed to see that there are material improvements in the evidence of witnesses and accordingly, they are not reliable.

11. Per contra, the Counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded by the Trial Court.

12. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

13. Before