Madhya Pradesh High Court
Punjab Singh vs State Of M.P. on 24 March, 2022
Author: G.S. Ahluwalia
Bench: G.S. Ahluwalia
1
Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005)
Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010)
Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
GWALIOR BENCH
DIVISION BENCH
G.S. AHLUWALIA
&
SATISH KUMAR SHARMA J.J.
Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005
Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh
Vs.
State of M.P.
Cr.A. No. 454 of 2010
Punjab Singh
Vs.
State of M.P.
Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008
Avtar Singh
Vs.
State of M.P.
_______________________________________
Shri R.K. Sharma, Senior Counsel with Shri M.K. Chaudhary. for the
Appellants Ramlakhan and Avtar Singh.
2
Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005)
Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010)
Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008)
Shri V.D. Sharma, Counsel for Appellant Punjab Singh.
Shri C.P. Singh, Counsel for the State.
Date of Hearing : 02-03-2022
Date of Judgment : 24th-03-2022
Approved for Reporting :
Judgment
24th- March -2022
Per G.S. Ahluwalia J.
1.Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005 has been filed by Appellant Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh against the judgment dated 6-6-2005 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Shivpuri in S.S.T. No. 112/2003.
2. Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008 has been filed by Appellant Avtar Singh against the judgment dated 11-6-2008 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Shivpuri in S.S.T. No. 112/2003.
3. Cr.A. No. 454 of 2010 has been filed by Appellant Punjab Singh against the judgment dated 5-4-2010 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Shivpuri in S.S.T. No. 12/2005.
4. The Appellant Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh has been convicted under Section 364(A) of IPC read with Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and has been sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default imprisonment of 3 years R.I.
5. The Appellant Avtar Singh has been convicted under Section 364(A)/34 of IPC and under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and has been sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3
Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008) 5000/- with default imprisonment of 3 years R.I., whereas he has been acquitted of charge under Section 365/34 of IPC.
6. The Appellant Punjab Singh has been convicted under Section 364(A) of IPC read with Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and has been sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default imprisonment of one year R.I.
7. It is not out of place to mention here that co-accused Surendra Dubey was also convicted for the offence under Section 364(A) of IPC read with Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act, but as he died during the pendency of this appeal, therefore, his appeal has been dismissed as abated.
8. The prosecution story in short is that the complainant Mohan Prasad Rathore, lodged a report on 4-6-2003 on the allegation that on 7-5-2003, he was coming back from his shop on his motor cycle. He was waylaid by the miscreants. Three miscreants were having three guns i.e., .12 bore and one mouzer whereas other three miscreants were having lathi. The miscreants put his motor cycle by the side of Nala. Thereafter, he was made to walk for three days and came to village Baghroli and stayed in the house of Surendra Dubey. He was given dinner and thereafter, he was locked inside the room of the house of Surendra Dubey and compelled him to write a ransom letter of Rs. 10 lacs. Surendra Dubey was told by other miscreants that the ransom amount is likely to be paid within 1 or 2 days, then the 4 Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008) complainant be released and some amount shall also be paid to Surendra Dubey. In the night when all the miscreants were sleeping, he came out of the house after opening the door and came rushing to the police station.
9. On the above mentioned report, the police lodged FIR in crime No. 0 of 2003 at Police Station Kailaras, Distt. Guna for offence under Section 364-A of IPC. The FIR was transferred to Police Station Chharch where Crime No. 26 of 2003 was registered. The spot map was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and by showing all the other accused persons as absconding, the police filed the charge sheet against Surendra Dubey and Ramlakhan for offence under Section 364(A), 368 of IPC and under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.
10. Thereafter, Punjab Singh and Avtar Singh were arrested on different dates and supplementary charge sheets were filed for offence under Section 364A(A), 368 of IPC and under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.
11. The Trial Court by order dated 17-2-2004 framed charges against Appellant Ramlakhan for offence under Sections 364(A) of IPC read with Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act. By order dated 2-2- 2008 charge under Section 364(A)/34 , 365/34 of IPC read with Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act was framed against Avtar Singh and by order dated 8-10-2004 charge under Section 364(A) of IPC and 5 Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008) under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act were framed.
12. The appellants abjured their guilt.
13. For Trial Court of Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh, the prosecution examined Bejuram (P.W.1), Mohan Prasad (P.W.2), Chironjilal (P.W.3), Pooran Singh (P.W.4), Shrilal (P.W. 5), Khyali (P.W.6), Naktu (P.W.7), Sitaram (P.W.8), Bhagwanlal (P.W.9), Ramprasad (P.W.10), Mahavir Prasad Jain (P.W.11), Mangilal (P.W. 12), Prashant Kumar Mishra (P.W. 13), R.S. Kushwah (P.W. 14), and Chandra Prakash (P.W. 15).
14. The appellant Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh examined Dev Vrit Sharma (D.W.1) and Rajendra (D.W.2) in his defence.
15. For Trial of Avtar Singh, the prosecution examined M.P. Singh (P.W.1), Chironjilal (P.W.2), Pooran Singh (P.W.3), Mohan Prasad (P.W.4), Sitaram (P.W.5), and R.S. Kushwaha (P.W.6).
16. The appellant Avtar Singh, did not examine any witness in his defence.
17. For Trial of Punjab Singh, the prosecution examined Mangilal (P.W.1), Sitaram (P.W.2), Chironji (P.W. 3), Pooran (P.W.4), Mohan Singh (P.W. 5), Mahavir Prasad Jain (P.W.6), Prashant Kumar Mishra (P.W.7), and R.S. Kushwaha (P.W.8).
18. The Appellant Punjab Singh did not examine any witness in his defence.
19. The Trial Court by the above mentioned impugned three 6 Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008) judgments have convicted and sentenced the appellants Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh, Avtar Singh and Punjab Singh for the offences mentioned above.
20. Since, all the appellants were arrested on different dates and were tried separately in different trials, therefore, in the light of the judgment 29-10-2021 passed by Supreme Court in the case of A.T. Mydeen Vs. Asstt. Commissioner, Customs Department, in Criminal Appeal No. 1306 of 2021, the evidence led in the case of each of the appellant, cannot be read either in favor or against the other appellants. Therefore, the appeals of all the three appellants shall be considered and decided separately, although by common judgment. All the appeals have been heard simultaneously. Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005 Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh
21. The complainant Mohan Singh Rathore (P.W. 2) had lodged the FIR making allegations against the miscreants and only the name of Surendra Dubey was mentioned in the FIR. It is submitted by the Counsel for the Appellant, that although no other person was named in the FIR, but still the names of 5 persons were mentioned in column 7 of the FIR, in which the "details of the accused persons" are to be given. When no accused except Surendra Dubey was named in the FIR, then how the scriber of the FIR had named other 4 persons in column 7 of FIR? Thus, it is clear that right from very beginning, the prosecution had started making efforts to falsely implicate the 7 Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008) innocent persons.
Further it is submitted that Mohan Singh Rathore (P.W.2) has specifically stated in his evidence, that the names of the miscreants were not known to him and he was told about their names by Surendra Dubey after his arrest and in view of the above mentioned stand taken by the complainant, the over implication/false implication of the appellants is writ large.
It is further submitted that even otherwise, if the complainant Mohan Singh Rathore (P.W.2) was missing for 27 days, then his relatives should have lodged the missing person report, but no such report was ever lodged, which clearly indicates that the entire prosecution story is false and the stand of the prosecution that the missing person report was mentioned in the Rojnamchasanha is nothing but an interpolation of official record created with a solitary intention to fill the lacuna.
Further, no letter of ransom was seized. There is nothing on record that any letter of ransom was ever sent.
22. Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the appellant Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh.
23. Mohan Prasad (P.W.2) has stated that it was about 7 P.M. on 7- 5-2003. He was coming back from his grocery shop on his motor cycle. 7 miscreants met him and they were having four guns and three lathis. He was taken in captivity. They blind folded him and 8 Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008) took him towards a Nala after tying his hands. He was kept in the forest for 22 days and he was being compelled to prepare food etc for the miscreants. Thereafter, six miscreants went back and the Appellant Ramlakhan and Surendra took him to the house of Surendra. Surendra was sleeping with him, whereas the Appellant Ramlakhan was sleeping outside the house. When both the persons were in deep sleep, he escaped and came to his house. He lodged the FIR in Kailaras Police Station, Ex. P.1. The spot map Ex. P.2 was prepared. The appellant is the same person who had abducted him. This witness was cross-examined.
In cross-examination, he stated that in Dehati Nalishi, Ex. P.1, he had not disclosed the names of the persons, who had abducted him. He further stated that the names of the accused persons were told to him by the appellant Surendra, after the FIR was lodged. He further stated that he never went to Jail to identify the appellants and he had never participated in Test Identification Proceedings. He further stated that in Dehati Nalishi, Ex. P.1, he had disclosed that he was kept in captivity for 22 days, but could not explain as to why this fact is not mentioned in the same. He further stated that he cannot disclose the reason as to why it is mentioned in Dehati Nalishi, Ex. P.1, that he had returned after 4 days. He further stated that from the date of his abduction, till lodging of FIR, he was not aware of the names of the miscreants. He further stated that no 9 Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008) miscreant including Surendra was known to him. He also could not disclose the distance between the place, where he was kept in captivity and his house. He also could not disclose the numbers of the inhabitants of the village. He was not in a position to disclose the details of the owners of adjoining houses. He further stated that he was kept in dark room. He further stated that he had run away after opening the door. He again stated that when he ran from of the captivity of the miscreants, he was not aware of their names. He further stated that he had disclosed the names of the miscreants to his father Chironjilal. He had also disclosed the name of the village, where he was kept in captivity. He denied that he had disclosed the names of miscreants in his Dehati Nalishi, Ex. P.1. He expressed his ignorance that the police had mentioned the names of miscreants without his disclosure.
24. Chironjilal (P.W.2) is the father of the abductee Mohan (P.W.2). He stated that on one day, his son Mohan (P.W.2) did not return back from his shop. When he enquired, then found that the shop was closed. Thereafter, he went in search of Mohan (P.W.2) and found that the motor cycle of Mohan (P.W.2) was lying on the ground. Thereafter, police report was lodged. However, this witness did not say that his son Mohan (P.W.2) after returning back, ever informed the names of the miscreants.
25. Shrilal (P.W.4) has stated that when he went in search of 10 Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008) Mohan (P.W.2), then his motor cycle was found, but he did not support the prosecution story about any information given by Mohan (P.W.2).
26. Pooran Singh (P.W.5) has stated about the recovery of motor cycle of Mohan (P.W.2) and also stated that Mohan (P.W.2) had informed him that he was abducted by miscreants and was kept in a house. But did not inform any other thing. Thus, it is clear that even to this witness, the names of the miscreants were not disclosed by Mohan (P.W.2).
27. Naktu (P.W.7), Kyali (P.W.8) have turned hostile.
28. Sitaram (P.W.9) is a witness of seizure of motor cycle vide seizure memo Ex. P.6. In cross-examination, he stated that he was not are of the fact that who was the owner of the motor cycle. The police had merely asked him to sign the papers, therefore, he had signed the same.
29. Bhagwanlal (P.W. 9) has also turned hostile.
30. Ramprasad (P.W.10) has stated that the counter copy of FIR of crime no. 26/2003 is Ex. P.8 and its photo copy is Ex. P.8C. The said copy was dispatched by outward register Ex. P.9 and its photo copy is Ex. P.9C and the entry is at serial no. 596. The dak book is Ex. P.10 and its photo copy is Ex. P.10C. In cross-examination, he admitted that none of the entry is in his handwriting and said that he has merely brought the record.
11
Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008)
31. Mahavir Prasad Jain (P.W.11) is Patwari and had prepared spot map, Ex. P.11 and its Aks is Ex. P.12.
32. Mangilal (P.W. 12) is the witness of seizure of motor cycle vide seizure memo Ex. P.6.
33. Prashant Kumar Sharma (P.W. 13) was posted in Police Station Kailaras and stated that on 4-6-2003, the complainant Mohan (P.W.2) had lodged the report of his abduction, Ex. P.1. In cross-examination, he fairly conceded that the name of the appellant Ramlakhan is mentioned in the details of accused persons but his name is not mentioned in the body of the FIR. He denied that the name of Ramlakhan was not disclosed by the complainant and it was written by him on his own.
34. R.S. Kushwaha (P.W. 14) has stated that a gum insaan report was lodged by Lalli Adivasi, Kotwar on 8-5-2003, which was written in Rojnamchasanha no. 141/2003 dated 8-5-2003. During the enquiry, motor cycle was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P.6 which was handed over to the father of the complainant on supurdagi. On 5-6- 2003, the Constable Mahavir Singh, of Police Station Kailaras, Distt. Morena produced the FIR 0/2003, Ex. P.1 which was registered as FIR No. 26/2003, Ex. P.13. The spot map, Ex. P.2 was prepared. On 11-7-2003, the appellant Ramlakhan was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P.15 and charge sheet was filed. In cross-examination, he stated that the contents of FIR No. 0/2003 registered at Police Station 12 Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008) Kailaras was reproduced in FIR No. 26/2003 at Police Station Chharch and admitted that the name of Ramlakhan was not mentioned in the body of the FIR. He fairly conceded that the spot map which was prepared during gum insaan enquiry has not been produced. He denied that prior to the incident, the appellant Ramlakhan was already detained in Sabalgarh jail. He denied that he had disclosed the names of the miscreants to complainant Mohan (P.W.2). He admitted that he did not go to the house in which the complainant Mohan (P.W.2) was kept in captivity. He admitted that no investigation was done by him in respect of said house. He also admitted that he had not investigated about the ownership and possession of the said house. He also admitted that he had not investigated about the adjoining houses. He also admitted that no Test Identification of the accused was got done by him. He also admitted that no letter of ransom was seized, therefore, it has not been produced.
35. Chandraprakash (P.W. 15) has proved Rojnamchasanha No.141 dated 8-5-2003 as Ex. P.14 and its photocopy is Ex. P.14C. In cross- examination, he admitted that the said Rojnamchasanha is not in his handwriting, but claimed that it was written by S.H.O. He was also unable to disclose as to whether he was posted in Police Station Chharch on 8-5-2003 or not?
36. Thus, from the evidence which has been led by the prosecution, 13 Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008) it is clear that the complainant Mohan (P.W.2) was not aware of the names of the miscreants. He did not disclose the names of the miscreants in his FIR, Ex. P.1 which was registered at serial no. 0 in Police Station Kailaras, Distt. Morena. No Test Identification Parade was conducted by the Police. The prosecution could not explain as to how the names of the miscreants were mentioned in the column of "details of accused" specifically when their names were not disclosed by the complainant in his FIR, Ex. P.1. Why the gum insaan report was not lodged and why it was mentioned in Rojnamchasanha only? Chandraprakash (P.W. 15) who has proved the Rojnamchasanha Sanha No. 141 dated 8-5-2003 is not the scriber of the same. No investigation in the village where the complainant Mohan (P.W. 2) was allegedly detained was done. Even the police did not try to find out the place where the complainant Mohan (P.W. 2) was kept in captivity. The police even did not try to find out that who is the owner and in possession of the house where the complainant was allegedly kept in captivity. The police also did not try to find out the places, where the complainant Mohan (P.W.2) was allegedly kept for 22 days. Nothing has been placed on record to suggest that what enquiry was done by the police after the gum insaan report was lodged? Even Chironjilal (P.W. 3) doesnot say, that the names of miscreants were ever told by the complainant Mohan (P.W.2).
37. Thus, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the 14 Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008) appellant Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh had ever abducted the complainant Mohan (P.W.2). On the contrary, it is a clear example of false implication of the appellant Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh. Cr.A. No. 454 of 2010 Punjab Singh
38. It is not out of place to mention here that Punjab Singh was produced on 24-7-2004 in execution of production warrant but since, 11 witnesses were already examined in the Trial of Ramlakhan and Surendra, therefore, his trial was separated.
39. From the order sheets of the Trial Court, it is clear that after the prosecution closed its case on 16-4-2005 and the case was fixed for recording of accused statement on 21-5-2005, the appellant Punjab Singh did not appear and accordingly, arrest warrant was issued against him. By order dated 28-6-2005, he was declared absconding. Thereafter, his production warrant was produced before the Trial Court on 4-1-2010 and the case was fixed for filing of supplementary charge sheet and the record of the case was called. By order dated 5- 2-2010, a letter of request was sent to the High Court for sending the record. On 5-3-2010, the Trial Court found that only the examination of the accused is to take place. On 29-3-2010, it was observed by the Trial Court, that the record of the Trial Court has been received from High Court, but as the appellant was not produced, therefore, his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was deferred. Accordingly, his statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded on 30-3- 15 Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008) 2010 and was convicted by judgment and sentence dated 5-4-2010. Thus, it is clear that the evidence in the Trial of Punjab Singh was recorded much prior to the Trial of Co-accused Avtar Singh, but since, the appellant Punjab Singh thereafter did not appear before the Trial Court, therefore, his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 30-3-2010 and judgment was pronounced on 5-4-2010 i.e., after the conviction of co-accused Avtar Singh.
40. Mangilal (P.W.1) is the witness of seizure of Motor Cycle, vide seizure memo Ex. P.6. He stated that his statement was never recorded by police.
41. Sitaram (PW.2) is also the witness of seizure of motor cycle, vide seizure memo Ex. P.6.
42. Chironjilal (P.W.3) is the father of abductee Mohan (P.W.4). He has stated that on the date of incident, the abductee did not return back from his shop and accordingly, he sent his servant who found that the shop was closed, but the servant did not return back. Accordingly, he went in search of Mohan (P.W.5) and found that the motor cycle of the abductee (P.W.5) was lying on the ground and accordingly a gum insaan report was lodged by Kotwar. His son had returned back after 25 days and informed that Ramlakhan, Punjab Singh and 6-7 other miscreants had abducted him. He further stated that no ransom amount was paid for release of his son Mohan (P.W.5). This witness was cross-examined.
16
Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008)
43. In cross-examination, he stated that he is telling the name of Punjab Singh on the information given by his son Mohan (P.W.5). He further stated that he doesnot recollect as to whether the police had recorded his police statement or not? At the time of recording of his evidence, he was not aware that who had abducted his son.
44. Pooran (P.W.4) has stated about the fact that when they went in search of his brother, they found that his motor cycle was lying on the ground. He further stated that after his brother Mohan (P.W.5) came back, he informed the names of miscreants Surendra, Ramlakhan, Punjab Singh etc. In cross-examination, this witness clearly stated that he had not disclosed the name of Punjab Singh in his police statement. Thereafter, again this witness corrected himself and said that he had disclosed the name of Punjab Singh, as his brother Mohan (P.W.5) had told him that Punjab Singh was also one of the miscreants. However, this witness has also stated that his police statement was never recorded after the abductee came back.
45. Mohan Singh (P.W. 5) has stated that at about 7 P.M., he was coming back on his motor cycle. He was waylaid by 7 miscreants. Four were having guns, whereas 3 were having lathis. He was abducted and the motor cycle was left on the way. He was blindfolded and was taken to forest area where he was kept for 22 days. Thereafter, the miscreants brought him to village Badroni. Surendra had brought food for them and thereafter six miscreants 17 Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008) went back. Ramlakhan took him to the house of Surendra. In the same night, he succeeded in escaping as the miscreants were in deep sleep. He came to Phoolpura at about 3:30-4 A.M. and lodged the FIR, Ex. P.1 in Police Station Kailaras. The spot map is Ex. P.2. Punjab Singh was identified in dock. This witness was cross- examined.
46. In cross-examination, this witness specifically stated that Punjab Singh was not known him to prior to the incident. Even his name was known to him. He had not disclosed the name of any miscreant in his FIR, Ex. P.1. Co-accused Surendra had disclosed the names of the miscreants. Since, he was not aware of the names of the miscreants, therefore, he had not disclosed their names in the FIR. He denied that he had not disclosed the physical appearance of the miscreants. However, could not explain as to why the physical appearance of the miscreants is not mentioned in the FIR, Ex. P.1. No Test Identification of Punjab Singh was conducted. Even in his police statements, he had not disclosed the names of miscreants. He could not recollect as to whether he had disclosed the name of appellant Punjab Singh or not? Co-accused Surendra had told him the name of Punjab Singh but could not clarify that when the name of Punjab Singh was told to him by Surendra. He admitted that his evidence was recorded on earlier occasion, but was unable to clarify as to whether he had disclosed the name of Punjab Singh or not? He 18 Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008) had met Surendra in Police Station Kailaras.
47. Mahavir Prasad Jain (P.W.6) is the patwari who had prepared spot map, Ex. P.11. The Aks isEx. P.12
48. Prashant Kumar Mishra (P.W. 7) has stated that he had recorded FIR Ex. P.1 at serial no. 0/2003 and thereafter, it was sent to concerning Police Station. In cross-examination, he admitted that the name of Ramlakhan is mentioned in the column of "Details of accused" and his name is not mentioned in body of the FIR. He also admitted that the name of Punjab Singh is mentioned in the column of "Details of accused" and is not mentioned in the body of FIR, Ex.P.1.
49. R.S. Kushwaha (P.W. 14) has stated that a gum insaan report was lodged by Lalli Adivasi, Kotwar on 8-5-2003, which was written in Rojnamchasanha no. 141/2003 dated 8-5-2003. During the enquiry, motor cycle was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P.6 which was handed over to the father of the complainant on supurdagi. On 5- 6-2003, the Constable Mahavir Singh, of Police Station Kailaras, Distt. Morena produced the FIR 0/2003, Ex. P.1 which was registered as FIR No. 26/2003, Ex. P.13. The spot map, Ex. P.2 was prepared. On 11-7-2003, the appellant Ramlakhan was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P.15 and charge sheet was filed. In cross-examination, he stated that the contents of FIR No. 0/2003 registered at Police Station Kailaras was reproduced in FIR No. 26/2003 at Police Station 19 Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008) Chharch and admitted that the name of Ramlakhan was not mentioned in the body of the FIR. He fairly conceded that the spot map which was prepared during gum insaan enquiry has not been produced. He denied that prior to the incident, the appellant Ramlakhan was already detained in Sabalgarh jail. He denied that he had disclosed the names of the miscreants to complainant Mohan (P.W.2). He admitted that he did not go to the house in which the complainant Mohan (P.W.2) was kept in captivity. He admitted that no investigation was done by him in respect of said house. He also admitted that he had not investigated about the ownership and possession of the said house. He also admitted that he had not investigated about the adjoining houses. He also admitted that no Test Identification of the accused was got done by him. He also admitted that no letter of ransom was seized, therefore, it has not been produced. He further admitted that the name of Punjab Singh is mentioned in the column of "Details of accused" and is not mentioned in the body of the FIR, Ex. P.1.
50. Thus, from the evidence which has been led by the prosecution, it is clear that the complainant Mohan (P.W.5) was not aware of the names of the miscreants. He did not disclose the names of the miscreants in his FIR, Ex. P.1 which was registered at serial no. 0 in Police Station Kailaras, Distt. Morena. No Test Identification Parade was conducted by the Police. The prosecution could not 20 Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008) explain as to how the names of the miscreants were mentioned in the column of "details of accused" specifically when their names were not disclosed by the complainant in his FIR, Ex. P.1. Why the gum insaan report was not lodged and why it was mentioned in Rojnamchasanha only? The prosecution has not proved the Rojnamchasanha No. 141/2003 No investigation in the village where the complainant Mohan (P.W. 5) was allegedly detained was done. Even the police did not try to find out the place where the complainant Mohan (P.W. 5) was kept in captivity. The police even did not try to find out that who is the owner and in possession of the house where the complainant was allegedly kept in captivity. The police also did not try to find out the places, where the complainant Mohan (P.W.5) was allegedly kept for 22 days. Nothing has been placed on record to suggest that what enquiry was done by the police after the gum insaan report was lodged? Further according to R.S. Kushwaha (P.W.8), the co-accused Surendra was formally arrested on 23-6-2003 in Sub-jail Morena. If the evidence of Mohan (P.W.5) to the effect that the co-accused Surendra had told him the names of miscreants is accepted, then it is clear that the abductee Mohan (P.W.5) had come to know about the names of miscreants after 23-6- 2003, then how the names of the miscreants were mentioned in the column "Details of accused" in FIR, Ex. P.1. Thus, it is clear that a concocted case was prepared by the police.
21
Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008)
51. Thus, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant Punjab Singh had ever abducted the complainant Mohan (P.W.5). On the contrary, it is a clear example of false implication of the appellant Punjab Singh.
Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008 Avtar Singh
52. It is not out of place to mention here that the evidence of the witnesses were recorded after the trial of co-accused Ramlakhan, Surendra and Punjab Singh was over and the witnesses were aware of the lapses in their evidence which was given by them in the trial of co-accused Ramlakhan, Surendra and Punjab Singh.
53. Chironjilal (P.W.2) is the father of the abductee Mohan (P.W.4). He has stated that on the date of incident, the abductee did not return back from his shop and accordingly, he sent his servant who found that the shop was closed, but the servant did not return back. Accordingly, he went in search of Mohan (P.W.4) and he found that the motor cycle of the abductee (P.W.4) was lying on the ground and accordingly a gum insaan report was lodged by Kotwar. His son had returned back after 25 days and informed the names of Ramlakhan, Pandit and Punjab Singh. In cross-examination, he stated that it is incorrect to say that he had lodged police report, in Police Station Kailaras, but claimed that his son had lodged the report.
54. Pooran Singh (P.W.3) has stated about the fact that when they 22 Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008) went in search of his brother, they found that his motor cycle was lying on the ground. He further stated that after his brother Mohan (P.W.4) came back, he informed the names of miscreants Ramavtar, Ramlakhan, Punjab Singh etc. However, the abductee Mohan Prasad (P.W.4) has not stated that he had ever informed the names of any miscreants to his brother Pooran Singh (P.W.3).
55. Mohan Prasad (P.W.4) has stated that at about 7 P.M., he was coming back on his motor cycle. He was waylaid by 7 miscreants. Four were having guns, whereas 3 were having lathis. He was abducted and the motor cycle was left on the way. He was blindfolded and was made to walk for 16-17 days and was kept in forest. Thereafter, the miscreants brought him to village Badroni and locked inside the house of Surendra Dubey. In the same night, he succeeded in escaping as the miscreants were in deep sleep. He doesnot know the names of miscreants except Surendra Pandit, Ramavtar, Ramlakhan and Punjab Singh. The appellant Avtar is the same person who had abducted him. All the seven miscreants had got a letter written from him in which the demand of Rs. 10 lacs was made. After running away from the captivity, he went to the house of Ramdayal in village Phoolpura, who took him to Kailaras Police Station and FIR, Ex. P.1 was lodged. In cross-examination, he admitted that the names of the miscreants were disclosed by Surendra. The miscreants were not known to him prior to the 23 Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008) incident and even he had not seen them. He admitted that at the time of abduction, the miscreants had covered their faces, therefore, he could not identify them. He was unable to state as to whether he had disclosed the names of miscreants in FIR, Ex. P.1 or not?
56. It is not out of place to mention that the prosecution has not examined Ramdayal and no document has been filed to show that Ramdayal had ever accompanied the abductee to Police Station Kailaras to lodged the FIR No. 0/2003.
57. Sitaram (P.W.5) is the witness of seizure of motor cycle, Ex. P.6.
58. R.S. Kushwaha (P.W. 6) is the investigating officer and his evidence is similar to what was stated by him in the Trial of co- accused Ramlakhan.
59. Thus, from the evidence of Mohan Prasad (P.W.4), it is clear that the names of miscreants were disclosed to him by co-accused Surendra. However, it is not his case that he had ever talked to Surendra during his captivity. The prosecution has failed to prove that when the name of the appellant was not mentioned in the body of the FIR, Ex. P.1, then how, his name could find place in the Column of "Details of accused". The officer who had written the FIR, Ex. P.1 in Police Station Kailaras Distt. Morena was not examined. There is nothing on record to show that the police had ever carried any investigation in the village where the complainant was allegedly kept 24 Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008) in captivity.
60. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant Avtar Singh beyond reasonable doubt.
61. Accordingly, all the appellants namely Ramlakhan, Avtar Singh and Punjab Singh are acquitted of all the charges which were leveled against them and their conviction is set aside.
62. Ex-consequenti, the Judgment and Sentence dated 6-6-2005 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Shivpuri in S.S.T. No.112/2003, thereby convicting Appellant Ramlakhan, Judgment and Sentence dated 11-6-2008 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Shivpuri in S.S.T. No.112/2003, thereby convicting Appellant Avtar Singh and Judgment and Sentence dated 5-4-2010 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Shivpuri in S.S.T. No.12/2005, thereby convicting Appellant Punjab Singh are hereby Set Aside and all the Appellants are hereby acquitted.
63. The appellants Ramlakhan and Avtar Singh are on bail. Their bail bonds are hereby discharged. They are no more required in the present case.
64. The appellant Punjab Singh is in jail. He be immediately released, if not required in any other case.
65. Let a copy of this judgment be provided to the appellants free of cost.
25
Ramlakhan @ Mohar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 405 of 2005) Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.454 of 2010) Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008)
66. The record of the Trial Court be send back immediately with a copy of this judgment for necessary information and compliance.
67. The Cr.A. No.s 405 of 2005 (Ramlakhan Vs. State of M.P.), Cr.A. No.454 of 2010 (Punjab Singh Vs. State of M.P.) and Cr.A. No. 510 of 2008 (Avtar Singh Vs. State of M.P.) succeed and are hereby Allowed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) (Satish Kumar Sharma)
Judge Judge
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2022.03.24 18:28:49 +05'30'