Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.
Akash S/o Raju Ratnakar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 3229, 3259, 6434 of 2020
Decided On : 21-12-2023
Criminal Procedure - Conviction under IPC Sections - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - [ABDUCTION, ASSAULT, EVIDENCE] - [IPC 364/34, 307/34, 201/34] - The court discussed the admissibility of electronic records, the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, and the reliability of witness statements. The court found the accused guilty based on the testimony of the victim and other evidence, concluding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused abducted and assaulted the victim, leading to his severe injuries. The accused denied the charges, claiming innocence and alleging false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on the victim's testimony and other evidence, concluding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of witness statements, admissibility of electronic records, and the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt based on the victim's testimony and other evidence. The court also discussed the admissibility of electronic records and the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence was affirmed. The accused were directed to surrender to undergo their remaining jail sentence.
JUDGMENT :
PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.
1. These appeals have been filed by the appellants/accused persons u/s 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arising out of common judgment dated 02.03.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court, Electricity Act), Indore, in S.T. No. 178/2018, whereby the appellants/accused persons have been convicted u/s 364/34, 307/34 and 201/34 of IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and RI for 03 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- respectively with default stipulations.
2. Facts of the prosecution case in brief are that Mohit (PW-1) has two sons, injured Mridul (PW-2) is elder and Gurvinder (PW-3) is the younger. Mridul (PW-2) and Gurvinder (PW-3) used to study and live in 208, Clerk Colony, Indore in a rented room. Their room partner was Sourabh Sen (PW-5). There was friendship between Anjali and injured Mridul (PW-2). Rahul Ratnakar (PW-9) is the elder brother of appellant Akash. Appellant Piyush @ Rohit Pareta is relative and appellant Vijay is friend of appellant Akash. Gurvinder (PW-3) had gone back to his house as his exams were over. On 07.01.2018 at around 11 AM, Mridul told Sourabh Sen (PW-5) that he was going out for breakfast, but he did not return back. His phone could not be reached. Even after searching for a while, he could not be found. Then Mohit (PW-1) filed a written complaint (Ex.P/2) to the SHO Pardeshipura, Indore. On the basis of written complaint (Ex.P/2), a missing person report was lodged by S.I. Kamal Kishore on 09.01.2018. During inquiry, ASI P.S. Bariya (PW-12) checked the CCTV footages of nearby, and recorded statement of Rakesh @ Monu, Sourabh Sen (PW-5) Anjali and Mohit. It was found that Anjali and appellant Akash were already friends and Akash was in love with Anjali for 03 years and despite of that, Anjali was building friendship with Mridul. Because of the aforesaid, appellant Akash alongwith Vijay and Piyush had kidnapped Mridul in a car bearing registration No. MP-09-CU-5956, which was owned by Rahul Ratnakar (PW-9). Therefore, ASI P.S. Bariya (PW-12) lodged an FIR (Ex.P/18) against the appellants on 11.01.2018.
3. During investigation, SI Kamal Kishore (PW-11) on 12.01.2018, found injured Mridul (PW-2) in 350 feet deep trench, near left side of Sati Gate, Pedmi - Udaipur road, in half-dead state. He was taken forthwith to Index Medical College, Indore for treatment. Dr. Vinod Kumar Sethi (PW-13) on 12.01.2018 at 10:00 AM examined Mridul (PW-2). He gave his report (Ex.P/19). On the same day, he was referred thereafter admitted for further treatment in Bombay Hospital, Indore. He was admitted there till 05.02.2018.
4. On 12.01.2018, SI Kamal Kishore (PW-11) prepared spot map (Ex.P/14) at the instance of Raj Kumar. He seized a lower (Article A-1) of injured Mridul (PW-2), Aadhar Card of accused Akash (Article A-6), blood stained soil (Article A-2), plain soil (Article A-3) and blood stained stone (Article A-4 & A-5), used to inflict injury upon Mridul (PW-2), from the place of incident vide seizure memo (Ex.P/15). He pasted seizure slip on Article A-4 and A-5 (Ex.P/16 & 17 respectively). On 12.01.2018, he arrested the appellants Piyush @ Rohit, Akash and Vijay and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P/4, P/5 & P/6, respectively). During custody, he interrogated the appellant Akash and recorded his memorandum statements (Ex.P/7) u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He seized the aforementioned car and the tape kept inside, at the instance of appellant Akash vide seizure memo (Ex.P/10). On 13.01.2018, during interrogation, appellant Vijay disclosed that he had thrown phone of injured Mridul (PW-2) in a sewer, but the phone could not be found at the place stated, SI Kamal Kishore (PW-11) prepared search memo (Ex.P/9). On 13.01.2018, SI Kamal Kishore (PW-11) seized CCTV footage from Hero Vinayak Motors, clerk colony vide seizure memo (Ex.P/19). On the same day, he also saw C
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act for the admissibility of electronic records.
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....
The authentication certificate required under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act must be issued by a person occupying a responsible official position in the company that produced the electronic recor....
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in capital cases.
Point of Law : By impugned judgment and order of conviction, appellants in these two appeals were convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302, 364 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal....
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
