Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Savita Devi Pandey on 30 January, 2013
Author: Vimla Jain
Bench: Vimla Jain
1
M.Cr.C.No.165 of 2012 &
Criminal Appeal No.2084 of 2011
30/01/2013
Shri Manish Dubey, counsel for the
appellant/complainant.
Shri Umesh Pandey, Government Advocate for the
State.
Since both the above cases arise out of the impugned
common judgment passed by the Court below, these are
being disposed of by this common order.
2. State has filed an application under Section 378 (III) of
Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to appeal
against the impugned judgment whereas complainant has
challenged the same order by filing this appeal against the
impugned judgment passed on 08/08/2011 by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Singrouli, District Singrouli (MP) in old
Session Trial No.213/2008 and new Session Trial No.
194/2010, acquitting respondent no.1Smt. Savita Devi
Pandey from the charge punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 read with 120-B and 364-A read with 120-B of IPC and respondent no.2 Ganga Shankar Pandey from the charge punishable under Sections 120-B read with 364-A, 302 and 109 of IPC and also respondents no. 3 Prakash Narayan 2 Pandey and respondent no.4 Rajesh Patel from the charges punishable under Section 468 of Indian Penal Code.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 17/07/2008 at about 6.30 pm, Shivam (deceased) went to his friend's house to take notebook but he did not return. At about 7.30 PM, complainant Rajmani Chaturvedi, father of the deceased received a phone call that the callers had kidnapped Shivam. The kidnappers demanded Rs.20,00,000/- as ransom money. They also told him that if he would inform to police, they would kill Shivam. Complainant Rajmani Chaturvedi, father of deceased refused to pay any money and lodged a report under section 364-A of IPC in the police station Waidhan District Singrauli. On investigation police found that accused Prakash Narayan Pandey and his friends had kidnapped Shivam and when complainant refused to pay money, they beat Shivam (deceased) and killed him by strangulating his neck and threw his body in the river. Respondents had fraudulently purchased a mobile sim no. 9009472806 from the Idea company in the name of Phoolkumari for use in commission of the aforesaid criminal act.
3
4. After recovery of body of the deceased, the First information Report (Ex.P/1) was lodged. During investigation statements of prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-31 were recorded. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed and respondents were charged for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, 302 read with 120-B, 364-A read with 120-B, 201 and 468 of IPC. Respondents denied the guilt for the aforesaid offence. After appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned trial Court acquitted respondent no.1Smt. Savita Devi Pandey from the charge punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 read with 120-B and 364-A read with 120-B of IPC, respondent no.2 Ganga Shankar Pandey from the charge punishable under Sections 120-B read with 364-A, 302 and 109 of IPC and respondent nos. 3 & 4 viz. Prakash Narayan Pandey and Rajesh Patel from the charges punishable under Section 468 of Indian Penal.
5. Learned Government Advocate for the appellant/State submits that learned trial Judge did not appreciate the evidence correctly and acquitted the respondents.
6. It is admitted fact that respondent no.1 Savita Devi 4 and respondent no.2 Ganga Shankar Pandey, are mother and father of respondent Prakash Narayan Pandey. On perusal of the evidence of Abha Singh (PW-11) and Rambhuvan Tripathi (PW-25), we find that Abha Singh (PW-11) was a tenant in the house of Ganga Shankar. On the date of incident, she gave her mobile phone to respondent No.1 Savita Devi, who called her husband Ganga Shankar Pandey (respondent no.2) and told about the incident. Rambhuvan Tripathi (PW-25) deposed that respondent Savita was calling and telling Prakash "where are you, come soon, here is a crowd". On examining the above said evidence, it cannot be concluded that respondent was involved in the incident. It has also come in evidence that respondent no.2 Ganga Shankar Pandey was not present on the date and place of incident. He had gone to Satna. There is no evidence that respondent no.2 Ganga Shankar Pandey deliberately went to Satna and hatched criminal conspiracy to commit the offence.
7. After examining the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we find nothing to indicate that Prakash Narayan Pandey (respondent no.3) and Rajesh Patel (respondent 5 no.4) forged the documents for obtaining sim in the name of Phoolkumari for committing an offence.
8. Thus, we find that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court acquitting respondent no.1 Smt. Savita Devi Pandey under Sections 120-B, 302 read with 120-B and 364-A read with 120-B of IPC, respondent no.2 Ganga Shankar Pandey under Sections 120-B read with 364-A, 302 and 109 of IPC, respondent nos. 3 Prakash Narayan Pandey under Section 468 of IPC and respondent no.4 Rajesh Patel under Section 364 of IPC, can not be termed as unreasonable and perverse. The learned trial Court committed neither any error nor ignored any valuable piece of evidence in favour of the prosecution. Nothing is pointed to us from the impugned judgment which may amount to perversity or illegality. After properly appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Court recorded a finding which does not call for any interference.
9. In view of the above, we find no ground to grant leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal of respondents. Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. filed by the State under Section 378(III) of Code of Criminal Procedure as well 6 as appeal filed by complainant under Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure are dismissed.
10. A copy of this order be kept in the record of Criminal Appeal No.2084/2011.
(RAKESH SAKSENA) (SMT. VIMLA JAIN)
JUDGE JUDGE
manju
7
8
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE VIMLA JAIN CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1288 of 2010 Nemlal S/o Motilal Mehra Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (J U D G M E N T ) For consideration (Smt. Vimla Jain) JUDGE /01/2013 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Saksena Judge /01/2013 Post f or :29/01/2013 (Smt. Vimla Jain) JUDGE /01/2013 9 (SMT.VIMLA JAIN) JUDGE /1/2013 It is not in dispute that Dhaniram Kirar (deceased) and all accused persons belong to the same village. The accused persons are the members of one family. Accused Komal, Raju alias Langda, Mattu alias Mahesh and Lachhi alias Lachhiram are brothers whereas Gullu alias Gulab is their father.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.10.2000 at about 11:30 am in village Imaliya (Kadheli), Dhaniram Kirar (deceased) was standing near his house and abusing in filthy language. Accused Gulab armed with TABAL, Mattu alias Mahesh armed with KATARNA, Raju alias Langda armed with axe, Lachhi alias Lachhiram armed with SABBAL and Komal armed with sword surrounded 10 Dhaniram, assaulted him and caused injuries on his head and various parts of his body. As a result of such injuries, Dhaniram died on the spot. During the MARPEET, when Maltibai and Baribai, wife and mother of deceased Dhaniram came to intervene, accused Kerabai and Gauribai pelted stones on them from their house and caused injuries to Baribai. The reason of MARPEET being that six months' prior to this incident, son of accused Gulab died due to electric current and accused persons suspected that deceased Dhaniram might have given electric current to his son. Ashok Kumar Patel gave the information of the incident to the Police Station, Tendukheda upon which Rojnamcha Sanha No. 670 was registered on 20.10.2000 at about 11:30 and on the telephonic information, the Town Inspector alongwith staff proceeded towards the spot. W hen Ram Prasad, cousin of deceased Dhaniram was going towards Police Station Tendukheda to lodge the report, on the way near village Ishwarpur, he met the Police Party and lodged the report there itself, which was reduced in writing as Dehati Nalishi vide Ex.P/3 at about 1:15 11 in the afternoon. On the basis of the report, Marg Intimation (Ex.P/4) was prepared.