Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P. vs Anek Singh on 19 October, 2016
-( 1 )-Criminal Appeal No.89/2008
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
DIVISION BENCH:
(Hon. Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta &
Hon. Mr. Justice Vivek Agarwal)
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.89/2008
.....Appellant : State of M.P.
Versus
.....Respondents : Anek Singh & Anr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B.P.S.Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State.
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, counsel for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(19/10/2016) Per Justice Vivek Agarwal, The State has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 20 th September, 2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mungawali, Distt. Guna (M.P.) in S.T.No.327/2005 acquitting the respondents from the charge under Section 364-A read with Section 511 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 28.9.2005 at about 9 a.m. son of the complainant, namely Arvind (PW-2) and his friend Vijay (PW-5) were going to their school at Bamoritaka from village Dongrachak when respondents held captive child Arvind for demand of ransom. Vijay rushed to the village and narrated the incident to Durgaprasad (PW-1), father of child Arvind. Thereafter, Durgaprasad (PW-1), Sukhlal (PW-3), Suraj Singh (PW-4) and Dhoop Singh (PW-6) and many other persons visited the spot on a tractor. Accused persons after seeing several persons started running leaving behind captive Arvind who was rescued and the respondents were caught by these
-( 2 )-Criminal Appeal No.89/2008 witnesses. Complainant Durgaprasad (PW-1) had lodged FIR (Ex.P/1) at police Station, Mungawali, Distt. Ashoknagar and handed over the respondents to the police. Police made arrest of the respondents. Head Constable Kailash Bairagi (PW-9) examined various witnesses and prepared spot map (Ex.P/2). After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mungawali, who committed the case to the Sessions Court at Ashoknagar and ultimately it was transferred to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Mungawali.
3. The respondents abjured their guilt. They took a plea that there was a dispute between respondent Anek Singh and complainant Durgaprasad on various issues like rent of the house and also in regard to employment of wife of Durgaprasad, therefore, respondents have been falsely implicated. In defence, respondents examined one Kamarji (DW-1).
4. The Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties acquitted the respondents from all the charges.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court.
6. In the present matter, the entire case depends upon the testimony of Arvind (PW-2), a child witness, Vijay (PW-5) and Durgaprasad (PW-1). These witnesses have stated that when Arvind and Vijay were going to their school, then the respondents detained Arvind. Vijay thereafter rushed to village Dongrachak and informed about the incident to Durgaprasad (PW-1), father of Arvind, and thereafter Durgaprasad alongwith other persons went to the spot and rescued Arvind and also caught the respondents. This story has been corroborated by Sukhlal (PW-3) elder brother of Vijay, Suraj (PW-4) uncle of Vijay and Dhoop Singh (PW-6).
7. Durgaprasad (PW-1) has accepted that wife of respondent Anek Singh was a member of Panchayat, whereas Dhoop Singh
-( 3 )-Criminal Appeal No.89/2008 (PW-6) has accepted that Anek Singh was a Panch in Gram Panchayat Sonakhedi. Durgaprasad (PW-1) has accepted that his wife was working as Anganwadi worker in the same Gram Panchayat. Arvind (PW-2) has accepted that earlier he was residing at village Barkhana where his father was practicing as doctor and later on they had left village Barkhana after locking the house in which they were staying. He has also admitted that he is not aware of the fact that when lock of the said house was removed. Defence witness Kamarji (DW-1) has accepted that Durgaprasad was residing in the house of respondent Anek Singh for 8-10 years and there was dispute between respondent Anek Singh and Durgaprasad in regard to payment of rent on which quarrel had taken place and Durgaprasad had threatened respondent Anek Singh to implicate him in a false case. In cross-examination, nothing could be brought to show that defence witness Kamarji was lying. This evidence of Kamarji (DW-1) has been corroborated by the evidence of Arvind (PW-2) who has accepted that they were residing at village Barkhana in a rented accommodation and had left village Barkhana after locking the said house. This evidence establishes that respondent Anek Singh had enmity with complainant Durgaprasad. Thus, it is apparent that there are several flaws in the prosecution story which indicate unnatural allegations having been made against the respondents, but since enmity is a double edged weapon which can result in either false implication of a enemy or commission of a crime by the other side with the child of an enemy, therefore, evidence of all the witnesses has to be considered carefully and minutely despite their being many flaws in the prosecution story. These flaws can be considered while appreciation of evidence to arrive at just and correct conclusion.
8. Durgarasad (PW-1) has stated that after getting information from witness Vijay (PW-5), he collected various persons and immediately reached to the spot on the tractor of one Amar Singh but it has not been clarified whether Amarsingh
-( 4 )-Criminal Appeal No.89/2008 had accompanied Durgaprasad and others to the spot or not. Durtaprasad (PW-1) has deposed that he had reached the spot within half an hour and rescued his son Arvind and caught the respondents. It is also an admitted position that distance between Bamoritaka and Dongrachak is about 3 kms, therefore complainant Durgaprasad alongwith others should have reached police Station by tractor within two hours because distance between police Station, Mungawali, from village Dongrachak is 18 kms. FIR (Ex.P./1) on perusal reveals that incident took place at about 9 a.m. and the FIR was lodged at about 3 pm i.e. 6 hours after the incident. When witness Durgaprasad (PW-1) visited the spot within half an hour of the incident and caught the respondents with the help of other witnesses, then he could have reached the police Station within 2 hours of the incident and FIR should have been lodged at about 11 a.m. Thus, delay of about 6 hours in lodging the FIR (Ex.P/1) requires to be explained. In the FIR (Ex.P/1) itself it is mentioned that the complainant had gone to the police Station on foot, therefore, delay was caused. This explanation causes doubt inasmuch as when Durgaprasad (PW-1) had reached the spot on a tractor and respondents were caught and brought back to village Dongrachak, then there was no reason for the witness Durgaprasad not to visit the police Station by the same tractor. Thus, there is no reasonable explanation by the witness Durgaprasad (PW-1) for delay in lodging the FIR, therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that a story has been cooked by Durgaprasad and he took time to trace respondent Anek Singh and his companion so to take them to the police Station with the help of certain companions. Thus, delay in lodging the FIR creates doubt on the entire prosecution story.
9. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no reason for falsely implicating respondent Pappu inasmuch as if there was enmity with respondent Anek Singh, then he alone could have been implicated falsely and there is no need to rope in respondent- Pappu. However, such argument is not
-( 5 )-Criminal Appeal No.89/2008 acceptable inasmuch as onus was on the prosecution to show that why respondent Pappu was implicated. It is possible that since story of kidnapping of a 13-14 years boy accompanied by another child Vijay has been cooked, therefore, they implicated respondent Pappu also so to prove an element of natural twist to the story inasmuch as one single person under normal circumstances cannot caught hold of a 13-14 years old boy for kidnapping and ransom. Thus, though no enmity is proved between Durgaprasad (PW-1) and respondent Pappu, still absence of such enmity makes no difference to the case in the light of the possible thought in the mind of Durgaprasad (PW-1) that one single person will not lend credibility to his story of kidnapping a 13-14 years old boy.
10. There is another flaw in the case that looking to the status of respondent No.1-Anek Singh, who remained Panch of a particular village and his wife being also a political person, who was also elected as a member of Gram Panchayat, they would not have indulged in such a crime putting their reputation and political career at stake. Arvind (PW-2) has accepted that his father had reached the spot after two hours of his kidnapping. Therefore, it does not appear to be natural that the respondents remained at the same place inasmuch as they had sufficient time to take away child Arvind to a distant and safe place in those 2 hours and they would have made a call for demand of ransom. It is not possible for kidnappers to remain present at the spot even after two hours of the kidnapping, specially when Vijay (PW-5) had seen the incident and run away towards the village where Durgaprasad (PW-1) was residing. Such flaw indicates that a false story was cooked by witness Durgaprasad (PW-1) i.e. the complainant and Vijay (PW-5) who is friend of Arvind and son of Santosh Singh. Sukhlal (PW-3) is also son of Santosh Singh and Santosh Singh was the neighbour of the complainant. Similarly, Suraj Singh (PW-4) is the uncle of witness Vijay. There is another flaw in the prosecution story inasmuch it is claimed that when these witnesses reached the
-( 6 )-Criminal Appeal No.89/2008 spot, respondents were asking witness Arvind to bring a sum of Rs.50,000/- from his father. If a child is kidnapped for demand of ransom, then it was not possible for kidnappers to ask for ransom to the kidnapped child because it was not within the capacity of kidnapped child to pay ransom unless he contacts his father. Similarly, it is not a claim of witness Vijay that respondents asked him to pay ransom of Rs.50,000/-. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that respondents had not said anything to him. Therefore, Vijay had no knowledge that respondents had demanded any ransom. During the intervening period when complainant and prosecution witnesses had reached the place of incident, neither any call for demand of ransom was made by the respondents to complainant Durgaprasad (PW-1), nor any hurt or injury was caused to child Arvind, therefore, none of the activities of the respondents establishes that they kidnapped witness Arvind for demand of ransom.
11. Dhoop Singh (PW-6) has though not accepted that he is related to Durgaprasad (PW-1), but in para 1 of his statement he has accepted that he is uncle of witness Vijay. Thus, all the witnesses are either relatives of Arvind or his friend Vijay and no independent witness was examined by the prosecution to establish that the crime was actually committed. In fact according to Durgaprasad, he had visited the spot by tractor alongwith Dhoop Singh, Sukhlal, Suraj Singh and other persons of the village, but none of these other persons who could have been independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Prosecution has also not proved that whether Arvind had any school bag at the time of incident. They have also not proved the timings of his school inasmuch as Durgaprasad (PW-1) has mentioned that his son had left home at quarter to 9 am whereas Vijay (PW-5) has narrated in his chief examination that at about 8 am he and Arvind were going to school at Bamoritaka. Thus, there is material contradiction in the school timings. In the present case, crime was registered by
-( 7 )-Criminal Appeal No.89/2008 Head Constable Kailas Bairagi at police outpost Sehrai and this Head Constable had carried out investigation himself, therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that Durgaprasad (PW-1) had managed Head Constable Kailash Bairagi to cook a false case against the respondents. It is also surprising that no senior police officers have tried to supervise the matter and find out the correctness of the investigation.
12. On the basis of aforesaid discussion and various flaws in the prosecution evidence, it is clear that reasonable doubt is created that complainant Durgaprasad has falsely implicated the respondents in a case of attempt to kidnapping for ransom, whereas if the respondents were held by the witnesses on the spot, then FIR could have been lodged within 2 hours of the incident. In the prosecution story, there is no mention of distance between the police outpost Sehrai and village Dongrachak where actually the FIR was initially lodged. Therefore, time period of delay on account of distance between place of incident and police Station, Mungawali, being 18 kms is not acceptable specially when distance of police outpost Sehrai could be less than police Station, Mungawali. Looking to the unnatural allegations and in absence of any independent witnesses, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the prosecution evidence and story. There is no flaw in the judgment of acquittal calling for any interference by this Court. Hence, there being no substance in the State appeal, it cannot be accepted.
13. In the result, appeal filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal is hereby dismissed confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court.
14. Copy of the judgment alongwith the record be sent to the trial Court for information .
(N.K.Gupta) (Vivek Agarwal)
Judge Judge
ms/-