Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Manish @ Mannu on 11 July, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia, Amar Nath Kesharwani
-1-
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh : Bench At Indore
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
ON THE 11th OF JULY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6879 of 2016
Between:-
SMT CHHAYA DEVI W/O LATE SHRIHUKUMCHAND SINGH ,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 11/C RATLAM KOTHI INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MUKESH SINJONIA, ADVOCATE)
AND
MANISH @ MANNU S/O DESHBANDHU, AGED ABOUT 33
1. YEARS, 10 GULMOHAR COLONY EXTENSION INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
RAHIL S/O CHIMANLAL , AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 16 RAVI
2. NAGAR BEHIND ANAND HOSPITAL INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
VIKRAM @ VIKKY S/O BHAGIRATH , AGED ABOUT 23
3. YEARS, 130/2 NAUYA BASERA CHHOTI KHAJRANI INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
MANISH S/O BABULAL AMODE , AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
4. 217/2 NAYA BASERA CHHOTI KHAJRANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
PANKAJ S/O RAGHUVEER SHARMA , AGED ABOUT 25
5. YEARS, 159 B S 4 SCHEME NO 78 VIJAY NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. MOHD SHAHDAD @ SHADAB @ SADDHU S/O MOHD NIJAM
, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, KABADI KI DUKAN NAYA
-2-
BASERA CHHOTI KHAJRANI INDROE (MADHYA PRADESH)
THROUGH POLICE STATION SAYOGITAGANJ INDORE THE
7. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDNENTS NO.3 & 4 BY SHRI PADMNABH SAXENA,
ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.7 / STATE BY SHRI BHASKAR AGRAWAL,
GOVT. ADVOCATE)
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8215 of 2016
Between:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THRU. P.S. SANYOGITAGANJ, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI BHASKAR AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE)
AND
MANISH @ MANNU S/O DESHBANDHU , AGED ABOUT 33
1. YEARS, 10, GULMOHAR COLONY EXTENSION, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
RAHIL S/O CHIMANLAL , AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 16,
2. RAVINAGAR, ANAND BAJAR KE PEECHE INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
PANKAJ S/O RAGHUVEER SHARMA , AGED ABOUT 25
3. YEARS, 159, B S 4, SCHEME NO 78, VIJAY NAGAR , INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
MOHAMMAD SHAHDAD @ SHADAB @ SADDGHU S/O
MOHAMMAD NIJAM , AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, KABADI KI
4.
DUKAN , NAYA BASERA CHHOTI KHARJRANI , INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
These applications coming on for hearing this day,
-3-
JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA passed the following:
ORDER
Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present case, with the joint request of the parties, these applications are heard finally and being decided by this common order.
Both the M.Cr.Cs. have been filed under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 26.05.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.98/2013, whereby out of six accused persons, two accused persons i.e. respondent No.3 - Vikram @ Vikky and respondent No.4 - Manish Amode have been convicted and remaining four i.e. respondent No.1 - Manish @ Mannu (now dead), respondent No.2 - Rahil (missing), respondent No.5 - Pankaj and respondent No.6 - Mohd. Shahdad @ Shadab @ Saddhu have been acquitted.
02. As per prosecution story, on 28.08.2012, deceased - Dharmendra Singh was going to Suyash Hospital, Indore and near about 10:00 am, some unknown persons fired gunshot and caused injury on his head. He was admitted in ICU. A Dehati Nalishi was registered at 11:30 am at the instance of Deependra Singh (brother of deceased). A motorcycle bearing registration No.MP 09 LL 2549 was found on the road with blood in it. Treatment of deceased Dharmendra was started in Suyash Hospital and on the complaint made by the complainant at Police Station - Sanyogitaganj, Indore, -4- offence was registered at Crime No.1098/2012 under Sections 307/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code & Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act. The investigation conducted by the police reveals that the deceased was having a welding shop at Mechanic Nagar. Respondent No.1 - Manish Juneja was also having shop No.47 at the same place. The investigation further reveals that Manish Juneja took a loan of Rs.50,00,000/- from the deceased, for which he was demanding but Manish Juneja was unable to return the said amount. On the basis of suspicion, Manish Juneja was arrested and in his 27 memo, he admitted that deceased gave him a deadline of 30.08.2012 to return the amount. Therefore, he met respondent No.2 - Rahil to eliminate the deceased - Dharmendra and Rahil demanded Rs.40,00,000/- to eliminate the deceased. Thereafter, they met other respondents namely Pankaj Sharma and Vikram, a country made pistol and bullet was arranged by Rahil and were given to Vikram and Manish Amode. Thereafter, the deceased was shown by Manish Juneja to Vikram and by way of conspiracy, Vikram fired a gunshot and fled away with Manish Amode by motorcycle. In order to commit this murder, Manish Juneja gave Rs.30,000/- cash to Vikram and two cheques of Rs.20,00,000/- (each) to Pankaj Sharma and Rahil. The police seized the mobile phone and obtain call details exchanged between all the accused persons. All the accused persons were arrested and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. The trial Court after evaluating the evidence came on record, came to the conclusion that only the call -5- exchanged between the co-accused are not sufficient to establish the conspiracy between them. It has also been observed that no evidence has been collected by the prosecution to establish the deceased has given a loan of Rs.50,00,000/- to Manish Juneja and the deceased was pressurizing him to return the said amount. On the basis of these evidences, these four appellants have been acquitted. Since those who fired the gunshot namely Vikram and Manish Amode were identified, therefore, they have been convicted by the trial Court.
03. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid acquittal, Smt. Chhaya Devi, mother of the deceased and State have preferred these petitions under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file an appeal.
04. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
05. The police came up with a story of conspiracy behind a contract killing of deceased - Dharmendra. During the pendency of these M.Cr.Cs., respondent No.1 - Manish Juneja passed away which has been confirmed by the concerned S.H.O. Another co- accused i.e. respondent No.2 - Rahil is missing and the police could not find him since 2016.
06. The prosecution came up with a story that Manish Juneja took a loan of Rs.50,00,000/- from the deceased and the deceased was pressurizing him to return the said amount. Since he was unable to return the said amount, he entered into a conspiracy and -6- requested Rahil to arrange a shooter for which Rahil demanded Rs.40,00,000/- from Manish Juneja. This fact cannot be believed that for non-returning the amount of Rs.50,00,000/-, Manish Juneja agreed to pay Rs.40,00,000/- to the shooters in order to eliminate the deceased. The prosecution has not collected any evidence to establish the there was a money dispute between the deceased and respondent No.1. The case of the prosecution is that two cheques of Rs.20,00,000/- (each) were issued by Manish Juneja, however, the same were issued from the cheque book of Dilip Prajapati and in his account from January, 2010 to February, 2012 only Rs.10,000/- were there, therefore, this fact makes the case of prosecution doubtful. Even otherwise also the entire story was planned by Manish Juenja who is no more and involvement of other co- accused who have been acquitted is only to the extent that they have arranged the shooter and pistol which was used for commission of the offence. Out of remaining three, one is absconding. Criminal filed by the accused who have been convicted is still pending before this Court, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court.
In view of the above, both the M.Cr.Cs. stand dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
Digitally signed by RAVI PRAKASH
Date: 2022.07.12 17:35:36 +05'30'