SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5801

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR DIVISION BENCH BEFORE: G.S.AHLUWALIA AND RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 446/2008 Ramveer @ Veera S/o Dileep Dhobi Versus State of Madhya Pradesh A N D Criminal Appeal No. 612/2008 Mahendra @ Lalla S/o Bhadai Aadiwasi Versus State of Madhya Pradesh

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri D.R.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.446/2008.

Shri D.S.Rajawat and Shri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.612/2008.

Shri C.P.Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/ State.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advocates:
R.P.Singh,Pramod Sharma,Advocate General

J U D G E M E N T

(06/08/2021)

Per Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J.:

This judgment shall govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 446/2008 (Ramveer @ Veera Vs. State of MP) and Criminal Appeal No. 612/2008 (Mahendra @ Lalla vs. State of MP), as both the appeals arise out of Sessions Trial No.51/2006.

2. Both the aforesaid appeals have been preferred under Section 374 of CrPC, challenging the conviction and sentence dated 8.4.2008 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act) Shivpuri

(MP) in Special Sessions Trial No. 51/2006, whereby Ramveer @ Veera (appellant in Cri.Appeal No.446/2008) and Mahendra @ Lalla (appellant in Cri.Appeal No.612/2008) have been convicted under Section 364(A) of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment of three years each. Both the appellants have also been convicted under Section 365 of IPC and sentenced to five years RI with fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment of one year each. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2(A). It is pertinent to mention here that in Criminal Appeal No. 446/2008 learned counsel for the appellant has filed application under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying therein for a direction to run all the sentences concurrently, imposed against the appellant in different sessions trial. The application has been considered and disposed of by passing orders on separate order sheet.

3. The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 15.11.2005 at about 10 am when Railway Engineer Gyanendra Pratap Singh Parmar along with trolley-man Bandilal Yadav and Kripal Singh Bundela were inspecting railway track between the village Padarkheda and Jamunia, suddenly 6-7 armed persons bearing police uniform reached there, abducted Gyanendra Pratap Singh Parmar, Bandilal Yadav and Kripal Singh Bundela and they also confined Bala Prasad Kolhi, Bansilal Ahirwar and Gulabdas. Thereafter, the accused persons released Bala Prasad Kolhi, Bansilal Ahirwar and Gulabdas but took Gyanendra Pratap Singh Parmar, Bandilal Yadav and Kripal Singh Bundela to the forest.

The FIR (Ex.P/1) was lodged. After several months, the accused persons released the abductees. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants/accused persons.

4. Appellants Ramveer @ Veera and Mahendra @ Lalla were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 364(A) and 365 of IPC read with Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act. Appellants abjured their guilt. After marshalling the evidence available on record, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced both the appellants as under :- Name of Section Punishment Fine In default, accused punishment Ramveer 364 (A) IPC Life Imprison- 5000/- Three years

@ Veera ment RI 365 IPC Five Years RI 2000/- One year RI Mahendra 364 (A) IPC Life Imprison- 5000/- Three years

@ Lalla ment RI 365 IPC Five Years RI 2000/- One year RI 5. The grounds raised are that the prosecution has not proved all the essential ingredients of Section 364(A) and 365 of IPC, hence conviction under Sections 364(A) and 365 of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act is not sustainable. It is further submitted that despite there was no evidence, the trial Court has given a finding that threat was extended to the abductees, which was of the degree to give rise to the abductees a reasonable apprehension to put them to death or to cause hurt. The demand was not communicated. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence.

6. Per Contra, learned State Counsel has vehemently
opposed the submissions and submitted that there is ample
evidence against the appellants and all the essential ingredients are
available on record. Therefore, considering the aforesaid the trial
Court has rightly convicted the appellants/accused persons. Hence,
no case is made out for interference.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top