Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Lokendra Singh vs State Of M.P. on 22 May, 2014
\2322 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 459 OF 2008
Lokendra Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh ...Respondent
ORDER
1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 4.4.2007 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) in Criminal Appeal No. 633 of 2000 affirming the judgment and order dated 31.8.2000 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Guna, M.P., in Sessions Case No. 328 of 1996, by which and whereunder, the appellant had been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 324/149, 307 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and awarded sentence for one year, two years, two years, eight years respectively with penalty of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of penalty, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months for causing injuries to Mintolal (PW.3).
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:
A. An FIR was lodged on 8.1.1991 at 10.45 a.m. at Police Station Aaron to the effect that when he was going from his house to Gulab Ganj Temple and when he reached the corner, he was severely beaten and injured by Vikram, Sukkam @ Sukhbeer, Ghanshyam, Lukendra, Gangaram, Kalloo @ Kalyan Singh, Raghuveer and others of Village Sovat. All the said persons came out of the house of Gangaram armed with Lathi, Farsa, Knife etc., had common intention to kill the complainant and if Devenra (PW.1), Kewal Chandra (PW.4 and Santosh Jain (PW.9) not reached there and saved him, otherwise the complainant could have been killed.
B. On the basis of that FIR, an investigation ensued and after completing the same, the chargesheet was filed against the appellant alongwith 8 others and the case was committed to Sessions Court. On conclusion of the trial, all the accused were convicted and sentenced as referred to herein above. 2 C. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the appeal which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order.
Hence, this appeal.
3. We have heard Shri Ashok Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Sakshi Kakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record.
4. The main argument of Shri Mathur has been that though in the incident occurred, a large number of injuries caused to the complainant Mintolal (PW.3) and eight persons stood convicted but so far as the appellant is concerned, his name did not surface either in FIR or in the statement of any of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’) or in the court, he has been enroped falsely merely on the ground that he is the real brother of the main accused Sukkam @ Sukhbeer. No overt act had been attributed to him by any of the witnesses and, therefore, the conviction is liable to be set aside only on this count.
5. On the other hand, Ms. Sakshi Kakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, could not point out as how the 3 appellant had been involved in the case and what role he had played and what was the evidence on record against him. Ms. Kakar has submitted that every where the witnesses had mentioned the names of various accused and further emphasised on others. She had fairly admitted that the name of the appellant did not find in the documents.
6. The trial court convicted seven accused persons including the appellant and acquitted two persons, namely, Kallu and Raghuveer. The courts below have convicted the appellant though no overt act had been assigned to him, nor any reference has been made to the evidence of any of the witnesses as under what circumstances the appellant could have been convicted. He has already served more than four years in jail. The incident occurred on 8.1.1991. Even Mintolal (PW.3), the injured witness, does not assign any specific overt act or even the presence of the appellant. In such a fact-situation, the Court has no option but to set aside the impugned judgment and order qua the appellant only and allow the appeal.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order impugned is set aside so far as the appellant is concerned. This 4 Court vide order dated 28.7.2008 had enlarged the appellant on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.
.....................................J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) ......................................J. (A.K. SIKRI) New Delhi, May 22, 2014 5 ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIA 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). 459 OF 2008 LOKENDRA SINGH Appellant (s) VERSUS STATE OF M.P. Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for stay and office report) Date: 22/05/2014 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI [VACATION BENCH] For Appellant(s) Mr. Ashok Mathur,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Adv.
for Mr. C.D. Singh, AOR(NP) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
This Court vide order dated 28.7.2008 had enlarged the appellant on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.
(Pardeep Kumar) (M.S. Negi)
AR-cum-PS Assistant Registrar
[Signed order is placed on the file]