Madhya Pradesh High Court
Panjab Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 November, 2022
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia, Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1 CRA No. 1212 of 2018 and CRA No. 1216 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
ON THE 11th OF NOVEMBER, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1212 OF 2018
Between:-
PUNJAB SINGH S/O CHIMMAN
SINGH GURJAR AGED 59 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
BHANWARPUR, POLICE STATION
BHANWARPUR, DISTRICT
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
........APPELLANT
(BY SHRI V.D. SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH THE
POLICE STATION PADHADGARH
DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
........RESPONDENT
(BY MS. KALPANA PARMAR - PANEL LAWYER)
2 CRA No. 1212 of 2018 and CRA No. 1216 of 2018
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1216 OF 2018
Between:-
RAMUJI @ RAMJILAL GURJAR S/O
BHOGIRAM GURJAR, RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE BAGEWAR, POLICE
STATION NIRAR, DISTRICT
MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
........APPELLANT
(BY SHRI V.D. SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH THE
POLICE STATION PADHADGARH
DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
........RESPONDENT
(BY MS. KALPANA PARMAR - PANEL LAWYER)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These appeals coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava passed the following:
JUDGMENT
Both criminal appeals have been preferred by appellants, namely, Punjab Singh and Ramuji @ Ramjilal Gurjar from jail, challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.01.2018 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act, 981) Sabalgarh, District Morena (MP) in Special Sessions Trial No.200014 of 2015, by which they have been convicted under Section 364-A of IPC r/w Section 3 CRA No. 1212 of 2018 and CRA No. 1216 of 2018 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and have been sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation. (2) Prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Hakim Rawat (PW1) lodged a report at Police Station Pahadgarh, District Morena on 22.05.2008 to the effect that he along with Sriniwas (PW7) and Jailal had gone to Dhangibaba from his village to perform ''jaat''. In the midst to quench their thirst, they went to near Ishwara Kherkai drainage where they met six miscreants in the attire of military out of which, one miscreant was wearing red shirt and black pant. They were all having guns and Ramswaroop (PW8) of Jhakhoda was also sitting on the ground with them. The head of miscreants, who has fair complexioned having beard and spots on his face, got all of them to the drainage. There was one miscreant of wheatish complexion whose one of the fingers of right hand was cut. All injured were assaulted by means of sticks (dandas). They were all enquired about their address, field and property. The head of miscreants told "they are taking Jailal and Sriniwas with them against which you have to bring Rs.2 lac as ransom amount to Pagara Dam on 24.05.2008. On the basis of this, Police Station Pahadgarh registered Crime No.57 of 2008 under Section 364-A of IPC r/w Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act. After report, the matter was investigated and spot map was prepared by police. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Police, after completion of investigation and other formalities, filed charge sheet under Section 364-A of IPC r/w Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act before the competent Court.
(3) Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of 4 CRA No. 1212 of 2018 and CRA No. 1216 of 2018 CrPC and they abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. They did not examine any witness in their defence. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 12 witnesses, i.e. complainant Hakim (PW1), Shivcharan (PW2), Prabhu (PW3), Bhalla (PW4), Ramniwas (PW5), Mukundi (PW6), Srinivas (PW7), Ramswaroop (PW8), Dr. M.C.Vyas (PW9), Siddhar (PW10), Latur Rawat (PW11) and Kishan Singh Rathor (PW12).
(4) The trial Court, after appreciating the entire evidence led by prosecution and relying on the same, found charges against accused proved and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them for offences as mentioned above in paragraph 1 of this judgment.
(5) Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the judgment passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses. There are major contradictions and omissions in evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Except complainant Hakim (PW1), most of the material witnesses including abductee Sriniwas (PW7) did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile and they also did not identify the accused miscreants. There is no recovery of alleged ransom amount. Neither any alleged deadly weapon has been seized from the possession of miscreants. As per opinion of doctor, no grievous injury is found on the body of the abductees. Since no offence under Section 364-A of IPC r/w Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act is made out, therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellants has also drawn attention of this Court 5 CRA No. 1212 of 2018 and CRA No. 1216 of 2018 towards the judgment dated 24th March, 2022 passed where-under on the same set of evidence present accused Punjab Singh has been acquitted by this Court in CrA No.454 of 2010 (Punjab Singh vs. State of MP) and also the judgment dated 21 st April, 2022 passed in CRA No.556 of 2011 (Punjab Singh vs. State of MP) by which Punjab Singh has also been acquitted of on same set of charges levelled against him.
(6) Learned State Counsel supported the impugned judgment and submitted that there being no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and the findings arrived at by Trial Court do not require any interference by this Court. Hence, prayed for dismissal of appeals.
(7) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused materials available on record and also gone through the evidence of following witnesses.
(8) PW1 Hakim who is alleged to be the complainant, in para 1 of his examination-in-chief deposed that six-seven miscreants wielding mouser, reached near Ishwara Kherkai drainage while they had gone to quench their thirst and thereafter, assaulted them and it was 12 O'clock then. At around 4:00 pm, the miscreants released all of them except abductees Jailal and Sriniwas and asked them to bring Rs.2 lac for release of the abductees as ransom otherwise they would be killed. This witness further in para 1 stated that the head of miscreants i.e. Punjab Singh and another Ramuji had assaulted them and third person to whom he did not know. This witness further in para 4 of his cross- examination deposed that he does not identify accused Punjab and 6 CRA No. 1212 of 2018 and CRA No. 1216 of 2018 Ramuji by name and the police had not taken his statement. This witness further denied that accused Ramuji and Punjab did not assault him and the police did not take his signature on any document. This witness denied that he is giving false evidence before the Court. (9) PW2 Shivcharan in para 2 of his examination-in-chief deposed that he does not know the miscreants. This witness in para 3 stated that he is unable to recollect that the said miscreants told them for bringing Rs.2 lac as ransom amount on 24-05-2008 at Pagara Dam for release of abductees in proper condition otherwise they would be killed.This witness in para 3 further deposed that he does not recollect to make such a statement in his police diary statement Ex.P3 from ''A to A'' in regard to carrying deadly weapon mouser by miscreants. This witness also stated that he does not recollect to make such a statement to the police in Ex.P3 from ''B to B'' in regard to head of miscreants. This witness further stated that he also does not recollect to make such a statement to police in Ex.P3 from ''C to C'' in regard to threat given for killing them by means of fire. This witness also denied to make such a statement in Ex.P3 from ''D to D'' in regard to identify accused persons. This witness denied that he is making the false statement in respect of identification of the accused. This witness did not support prosecution version and has turned hostile.
(10) PW3 Prabhu in para 4 of his evidence admitted that he does not recognize accused Punjab by face. The miscreants were calling out ''Punjab - Punjab'' at the time of incident, therefore, he is stating the name of Punjab at their behest. This witness also did not support prosecution story and has turned hostile.
7 CRA No. 1212 of 2018 and CRA No. 1216 of 2018(11) PW4 Bhalla denied about the identification of accused. This witness in para 3 of his cross-examination admitted that his police diary statement Ex.P5 was recorded without read over and he did not recollect that on which date and time, the police had recorded his statement. This witness also did not support prosecution case and turned hostile.
(12) PW5- Ramniwas in para 2 of his examination-in-chief deposed that the miscreants did not make any demand from them. This witness in para 4 of his evidence denied that the head of miscreants had directed to abduct Jailal and Sriniwas and had also directed them to bring Rs.2 lac at Pagara Dam on 24-05-2008 and got back Sriniwas and Jailal. This witness in the same para stated that he does not know accused Jandel Singh who is present in Court and does not recognize the absconded accused Saligram, Punjab and Ramuji by name and face. This witness denied to have given knowingly the false statement in order to save the accused. This witness in para 5 further deposed that abductee Jailal two years before and witness Ramsingh one year before have already passed away. This witness did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. PW6 Mukundi Rawat in his statement has deposed the same as that of Ramniwas (PW5), turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. (13) Abductee Sriniwas (PW7) in para 1 of his evidence deposed that he does not know co-accused Jandel Singh, Saligram, Rajendra Parmu, accused Ramjilal and Punjab Singh. He in para 2 of his statement deposed that the police did not record his statement. Lastly in para 5 of his statement, this witness deposed on his own that the 8 CRA No. 1212 of 2018 and CRA No. 1216 of 2018 miscreants used to wrap their faces by clothes and, therefore, he could not identify them. This witness did not support prosecution case and turned hostile.
(14) PW8 Ramswaroop also did not support story of the prosecution and turned hostile. He in para 2 of his statement deposed that the head of miscreants had directed to abduct Jailal and Sriniwas and had also directed them to bring Rs. 2 lac at Pagara Dam on 24-05-2008 and got back Sriniwas and Jailal, otherwise kill them.
(15) PW9 Dr. MC Vyas in his examination stated to have suffered the injuries sustained by abductee Jailal by means of hard and blunt object and were simple in nature. Similarly, doctor has opined that the injuries sustained by abductee Sriniwas were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object, duration of which was between 24-36 hours.
(16) PW10 Siddhar who is an independent witness in para 1 of his evidence deposed that on account of fire made, the miscreants left the abductees Sriniwas and Jailal where were sleeping. On recovery of the abductees police had made the recovery memo Ex.P14 & Ex.P15 carrying his signatures.
(17) PW11 Latur Rawat in his statement deposed abductees Sriniwas and Jailal could be released after one month from their abduction and after their release, recovery memo Ex.14 and Ex.P15 was prepared on which he had put in his thumb impression. He had also put in his thumb impression on the memo of handing over the abductees to their families which is Ex.P.16.
(18) PW12 Kishan Singh Rathor who is the IO in the matter, probed 9 CRA No. 1212 of 2018 and CRA No. 1216 of 2018 the matter, recorded the statements of witnesses on the basis of their memorandum and other formalities also.
(19) So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the basic ingredients of Section 364-A IPC are lacking is concerned, it is needless to mention here provisions of said Section as under:-
''364A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc--Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental organization or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine." (20) From bare perusal of provisions of aforesaid Section, it appears that there are three stages in this Section, one is the kidnapping or abduction, second is threat of death coupled with the demand of money and lastly, when the demand is not met, then causing death. After noticing the statutory provisions of said Section, this Court found that the essential ingredients to convict the accused under Section 364A of IPC which are required to be proved by prosecution are lacking in the present matter. Except complainant Hakim (PW1), most of the material witnesses including one of abductees namely Sriniwas have been turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution case. Further, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case in regard to demand of ransom amount as well as recovery of ransom amount from the the accused and there is no 10 CRA No. 1212 of 2018 and CRA No. 1216 of 2018 recovery of deadly weapon from the possession of accused at their instance. No documentary evidence has also been produced by prosecution regarding payment of ransom amount to any of the accused persons. Prosecution has not been able to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that neither appellant had participated or involved in commission of abduction or kidnapping nor had caused any injury to anybody or has given threat to cause death or hurt to the persons like abductees in detention after such abduction. As the rescue of the abductees from the captivity of miscreants has also rendered doubtful by another circumstance that no one from the abductees received any serious injury in the incident in question, therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 364-A of IPC are lacking. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has not properly analyzed the evidence available on record and committed an error in convicting the appellants accused for the charged offences.
(21) After analyzing and re-appreciating the evidence of most of material witnesses available on record, it appears that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the appellants must get benefit of doubt thereof. As a consequence therefore, both the criminal appeals (CRA No. 1212 of 2018 and 1216 of 2018) stand allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.01.2018 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act, 1981) Sabalgarh, District Morena (MP) in Special Sessions Trial No. 200014 of 2015, by which they have been convicted under Section 364-A of IPC r/w Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and have been sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default 11 CRA No. 1212 of 2018 and CRA No. 1216 of 2018 stipulation is hereby set aside. Appellants Ramuji alias Ramjilal Gurjar and Punjab Singh Gurjar are acquitted of charges levelled against them. Since appellants Ramuji alias Ramjilal Gurjar and Punjab Singh Gurjar are reported to be in jail, therefore, they be set at liberty forthwith unless their detention is required in connection with any other case.
(22) A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerning jail as well as a copy of this judgment along with record be sent back to the Court below for necessary information and compliance.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) (RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE JUDGE
MKB
MAHEND
Digitally signed by MAHENDRA BARIK
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=8c6d4d6122d7ee987e457a3bec5922cacbc050c99898 1397a35d9758a2b55074, RA BARIK pseudonym=61167CBF346371FDA4919D07819090142FCCA05 6, serialNumber=AB90F893988F10D718DA01F8065D87F25DDC9 B6C8C3FF0E5E280DD36D476F6BA, cn=MAHENDRA BARIK Date: 2022.11.12 10:26:44 +05'30'