Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rajesh @ Babba vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 October, 2021
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1230 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7195 of 2021)
RAJESH @ BABBA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.378 of 2009.
Fourteen persons were tried in Special Case No.30 of 2005 on the file of the Special Judge, Datia, Madhya Pradesh for having committed the offences under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short), Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 and Sections 25(1-B)A and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
By its judgment and order dated 27.05.2009, the Trial Court found that the present appellant (original accused no.8) alone had kidnapped the victim Sukhnandan (PW4) for ransom and Signature Not Verified was Digitally signed by Dr. Mukesh Nasa thus held guilty of the offences with which he was Date: 2021.10.22 13:31:45 IST Reason:
charged. The other accused were granted benefit of doubt and were acquitted.2
For the offence punishable under Section 364A IPC, the appellant was awarded life sentence with additional sentences in respect of the other offences. According to the record, the appellant has already completed 15 years of actual sentence.
We have heard Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned Advocate for the appellant through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and Mr. Gopal Jha, learned Advocate for the State.
The entire case of the prosecution hinges on the testimony of PW4 Sukhnandan. In his examination-in-chief, he attributed certain role to three accused Chaki, Nandu and Rajesh Babba as under:
“I do not know the accused present in the court. The incident is of about 3.5 months old from today, I was at my well, time was 8 O’clock in the night, I was kidnapped by Chhakki, Nandu and Rajesh Babba and was taken to jungle. I was kidnapped for money by Chakki and Rajesh, Nandu. Chhakki and Rajesh were carrying guns, Nandu was empty handed. Besides Rajesh Babba, the other accused present in the court did not kidnap me. I was kept in confinement for 60 days. They used to assault me, keep me hungry, Rajesh @ Baba used to threaten me that I will be killed if I give statement anywhere. Police had prepared recovery memo after recovering me.” In the cross-examination, the witness stated as under: “Accused Rajesh, Chhaki and Nandu belong to village near my village. I had not seen accused Rajesh prior to being kidnapped. The culprit who had kidnapped me had told his name as Rajesh Babba. Police had got identified by me, in which I had recognized accused Rajesh Babba. It is correct that I had told the police about Rajesh that this is Rajesh Babba at the police station itself. The Sub Inspector had got me to recognize and had stated that this only is Rajesh Babba. It is wrong to say that accused Rajesh Babba had not kidnapped me. It is wrong to say that polarization is there against me in the village.” 3 Though similar role was attributed to Chaki, Nandu and the appellant, other two accused were acquitted by the Trial Court against which no appeal was preferred by the prosecution. In any case, the only material against the appellant is the testimony of the aforesaid PW4 Sukhnandan. The admission given by said witness in the cross-examination clearly indicates that:
a. The witness had not seen the appellant prior to his kidnapping.
b. It was the Police who had shown the appellant to the witness in the Police Station and had stated that the appellant was Rajesh Babba.
The material on record against the appellant is highly inadequate to justify his conviction under Section 364A of the IPC and other offences with which he was charged. As stated earlier, his two accomplices Chaki and Nandu, who were similarly placed, were given benefit of doubt by the Trial Court.
Considering the totality of the circumstances on record, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
We, therefore, allow this appeal, set-aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant and acquit him of all the charges leveled against him. 4 The appellant be released forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other offence.
........................J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT) ........................J. (S. RAVINDRA BHAT) New Delhi, October 20, 2021 5 ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-A (HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.7195/2021 RAJESH @ BABBA Peittioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s) (IA No.106264/2021 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 20-10-2021 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Appellant(s) Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv.
Ms. Vithika Garg, Adv.
Mr. Ratneshwar Das, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Mr. Shreyash Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Verma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed, in terms of the Signed Order placed on the file.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MUKESH NASA) (SUNIL KUMAR RAJVANSHI)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER