Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shailendra Singh Tomar on 7 September, 2017
Bench: N.V. Ramana, D.Y. Chandrachud
1
In the Supreme Court of India
CRIMINAL Appellate Jurisdiction
CRIMINAL Appeal Nos. 1239 of 2013
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH … APPELLANT
VERSUS
SHAILENDRA SINGH TOMAR & ANR. … RESPONDENTS
ORDER
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt.01.11.2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Cri. Appeal No.240 of 1991 whereby the High Court has affirmed the order passed by the trial court acquitting the respondent herein from the charges levelled against him.
3. A brief reference of the facts of the case, as appeared from the prosecution story, goes to show that on 2.4.1987, three police personnel namely Ramanand Singh (PW1), Purushottam (deceased) and Bhagwan Das (PW 34), of Inderganj Police Station, District Gwalior, were put on duty to accompany two accused persons, namely Ravi Pandey (deceased) and Bhagwan Das Kamariya (PW
3) from jail to the Sessions Court for hearing of a criminal case Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SHASHI SAREEN Date: 2017.12.09 against them. After the completion of hearing, when the police 12:53:43 IST Reason:
personnel along with those two prisoners were returning back to the 2 jail in an auto rickshaw, a white coloured Fiat car intercepted them and an Ambassador car reached there and stood by the side of auto rikshaw. Immediately, the accused persons including the respondent herein, armed with rifles in their hands, came out of their vehicles and fired at the auto rickshaw, thereby injuring Constables Bhagwan Das and Purushottam as well as prisoners Bhagwan Das Kamariya and Ravi Pandey. Injured Constable Bhagwan Das was sent to the hospital in an ambulance while the injured prisoners Bhagwandas Kamaria and Ravi Pandey were sent to hospital in the same auto rickshaw. Thereafter, on the basis of report lodged by Constables Ramanand Singh and Purushottam, FIR was registered and investigation started and other formalities followed, such as collecting blood stained soil, seizure of auto rickshaw, Ambassador car, empty and alive cartridges etc. Due to the injuries sustained, prisoner Ravi Pandey and Constable Purushottam died.
4. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against three accused including the respondent herein, under Sections 148, 302/149, 323/149, 307/149, 397 and 120B, IPC while eight other accused persons were stated to have absconded and the case has been committed to trial Court.
5. The trial Court upon forming the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case, acquitted all the three accused from the charges levelled against them. Upon the State of Madhya Pradesh preferring appeal before the High Court, it appears that the two members of the Division Bench of High Court expressed 3 difference of opinion, one learned Judge convicting and the other learned Judge acquitting the accused. Hence, the matter was referred to another learned Judge of the High Court, who also affirmed the order passed by the trial Court acquitting the accused. Aggrieved thereby, the State filed appeal before this Court against two accused namely Shailendra Singh Tomar (respondent herein) and Raj Singh Tomar, in respect of whom the special leave petition stood dismissed by this Court on 24-01-2013 on account of non-prosecution by the appellant-State. Hence we are now concerned with only one accused in this appeal.
6. On giving our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on both sides and going through the record, it can be said that the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities. It is to be noted that the eyewitnesses Constable Ramanand (PW 1) who lodged the FIR and another Constable Bhagwandas (PW 34) did not support the prosecution case and have turned hostile. The statement of another eyewitness Bhagwan Das Kamariya (PW3) cannot be given effect to not only because he was already a prisoner and had criminal background, and also he was in inimical terms with the accused. He appears to have made improvements in his statements as he mentioned the name of only one accused, that too who was already dead. It is a significant flaw in the prosecution case that PW 3 stated that he could not name the other two accused as his condition was very serious, but on the other hand Dr. Prithviraj Singh (PW 44) clearly certified that PW3 was fully conscious and was mentally fit for deposition. Though PWs 4 7, 8 and 12 were shown as independent witnesses, they too did not support the prosecution case. Another witness PW4 (Avtar Singh) denied his relationship with PW3—Bhagwan Das Kamaria (prisoner) but Ramesh Prasad Sudole (PW32) who recorded dying declaration of PW3 proved their relationship. Moreover, the record also shows that the statements of prosecution witnesses give way for doubting their correctness as they were contradictory in nature.
7. Taking note of the aforementioned circumstances, the Court cannot convict the accused and we do not find fault with the acquittal order passed by the trial Court and duly supported by the High Court. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
……………………………….J. (N. V. Ramana) ………………………..…….J. (Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud) New Delhi, September 07, 2017.
5
ITEM NO.107 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1239/2013
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SHAILENDRA SINGH TOMAR & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 07-09-2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD For Appellant(s) Mr. Prateek Rusia, Adv.
Mr. C. D. Singh, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Bhalla, Adv.
Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SHASHI SAREEN) (S. SIVARAMAKRISHNA)
AR CUM PS ASST.REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)