Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhotelal Yadav & Anr. vs The State Of M.P on 21 December, 2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH,
JABAPLUR
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1579 OF 1997
Chhotelal Yadav & another.
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri R.P.Tiwari, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on the 21st day of December, 2012) This criminal appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10/9/1996 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur in ST No.1/1995, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:-
Name of Convictio Sentence Fine Default
the n U/S (Rs.) sentence
accused
Chhotelal 458 of One year's RI
and IPC
Jivanlal Three years' RI
307/34 of
IPC
25 of One year's RI
Arms Act
27 of
Arms Act One year's RI
2 Cri. A. No.1579/1996
All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
2. The prosecution's story, in short, is that on 23.9.1994 at about 12 O'clock in the night the complainant Jamni Bai (PW-1) was sleeping in her house situated at Village Bandharwar (Police Station Badamalhara District Chhattarpur). While sleeping she heard a sound of firing, and therefore she woke up. She saw the appellants standing in front of her. They had already entered into the house of the complainant. The appellant Chhotelal gave a cartridge to the appellant Jivanlal and directed him to fire. On firing by the appellant Jivanlal, Darua (PW-3) husband of the complainant sustained some injuries. Thereafter the appellant Chhotelal loaded the gun and fired upon the complainant Jamni Bai due to which she sustained a gun shot injury in her right thigh. Thereafter one more fire was done by the appellant Jivanlal. Two persons were standing in front of the house. They shouted for the appellants to come back and thereafter the appellants ran away. The complainant Jamni Bai lodged an FIR Ex.P-1 at Police Station Badamalhara in the same night at about 4:35 AM. The injured persons were sent for their medico legal examination and treatment. Dr. P.K.Jain (PW-10) at the Primary Health Centre, Badamalhara examined the victim Jamni Bai and gave his report Ex.P-15. He found three injuries to the victim Jamni Bai over her right parietal 3 Cri. A. No.1579/1996 region, near the left eye and right thigh caused by pellets. Those injuries were found simple in nature. Similarly, he examined the victim Darua and gave his report Ex.P-16. So many wounds of pin type pellets were found at four places of his body. Such wounds were found on the left shoulder, back of the right shoulder, near the left ear and left side of the head. He referred the victim Darua for his X-ray examination. In the X-ray, no bony injury was found. The police arrested the appellants and on interrogation the appellant Jivanlal gave an intimation about two cartridges and those two cartridges were recovered from his field. Similarly, the appellant Chhotelal gave an intimation about the handmade pistol and the handmade pistol of 12 bore was recovered from him. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the JMFC Bijawar, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Chhattarpur and ultimately it was transferred to the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur.
3. The appellants-accused abjured their guilt. They took a specific plea that they were falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity. In defence, Jhallu Raja (DW-1) and Balmukund Tiwari (DW-2) were examined.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted the appellants for commission of offence punishable under 4 Cri. A. No.1579/1996 Sections 458, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and sentenced as mentioned above.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants were falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity. In the FIR it was mentioned that one katta was used in the incident where in the statements of the witnesses given before the trial Court they told about three firearms. The police did not seize more than one firearm from anyone. There was no source of light in the room, and therefore there was no reason by which the testimony of the eye-witnesses can be accepted that they identified the actual culprits. The witnesses relating to the seizure of the katta and cartridge turned hostile, and therefore seizure of such property was not proved beyond doubt. The katta and cartridge which were alleged to be seized were not sent to the Reserved Inspector for their examination. That property was sent to the FSL, but no FSL report was submitted in the trial, and therefore it was not proved that the appellants had any firearm with them or they used such firearm. The appellants could not be convicted for any offence including the offence under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. In the alternate, it is submitted that the appellants remained in the custody for more than three months and they have faced the trial and 5 Cri. A. No.1579/1996 appeal for last 17 years, and therefore they may not be sent to the jail again.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that the conviction as well as the sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be correct and there is no basis by which any interference may be done in the appeal.
8. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be considered as to whether the appeal of the appellants can be accepted? And whether the sentence directed by the trial Court against the appellants can be reduced?
9. So far as the offence under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act is concerned, the appellants could be convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, if it is established that they had firearm at the time of the incident and they used the same. Whereas the appellants could be convicted for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, if they had firearm with them at the time of the incident or any firearm or ammunition was recovered from them. First of all the factual position relating to the incident may be considered. Jamni Bai (PW-1) and Darua (PW-3) have stated that some persons entered into their house. Initially Jamni Bai heard a sound of fire and she sustained no injury from first fire. Thereafter she woke up and saw the appellants. 6 Cri. A. No.1579/1996 Both the appellants had firearms of 12 bore. One more person was present with the appellants having a katta with him. The appellant Chhotelal assaulted by firing from a katta on the head of the victim Jamni Bai. He also assaulted by firing from katta to the victim Darua causing him injury on his left scapular region. On shouting of the victims, some persons came to the spot, who saved the victims. The complainant Jamni Bai lodged an FIR Ex.P-1 at Police Station Badamalhara after 4 ½ hours, whereas the police station was 12 kms away from the spot. The FIR lodged by the victim Jamni Bai was lodged with a delay of at least two hours. The victims were injured and after the incident they were taken to the Police Station.
10. In the present case, the most important fact was that the victim Jamni Bai and her husband Darua identified the culprits in a dark night. It is established in the statements of the complainant Jamni Bai and her husband Darua that they had an enmity with the appellants. The enmity is a double edged weapon, that means due to enmity the appellants could assault the victims or due to that enmity the appellants could be falsely implicated by the victims, if the victims could not know about the actual culprits. In the present case a spot map Ex.P-2 was produced by the police, which was prepared by the Inspector M.K.Pathak (PW-9). In that spot map Inspector M.K. Pathak could not give any description relating to the 7 Cri. A. No.1579/1996 source of light. Also the complainant Jamni Bai and her husband Darua did not say anything about the source of light. Darua (PW-3) has admitted that Jhallu Raja was the first person, who came to his house and participated in taking the victims to the police station by a jeep. Jhallu Raja (DW-1) was not examined by the prosecution, but he was examined by the defence. He has stated that neither Jamni Bai nor Darua could identify the actual culprits and they were talking with each other that they could lodge the report against the enemies on the basis of suspicion.
11. The appellants examined two defence witnesses Jhallu Raja (DW-1) because of the fact that a real story was told by the victims to Jhallu Raja (DW-1) soon after the incident and one Balmukund Tiwari (DW-2) was examined to prove the alibi of the appellant Jivanlal that at the time of incident, Jivanlal was working in a Panchayat held at Village Bandhawar. So far as the testimony of Balmukund Tiwari (DW-2) is concerned, it is strange that a meeting of the Panchayat took place at 2:00 AM in the night. No proceeding of such meeting was produced by the witness Balmukund Tiwari (DW-2) at the time of his statement, and therefore the testimony of Balmukund Tiwari cannot be relied upon. Therefore, the alibi relating to the appellant Jivanlal is not established. It is true that Jhallu Raja (DW-1) was the person, who took the victims to the police station, and therefore his testimony can be believed. But there is a 8 Cri. A. No.1579/1996 possibility that he was won over by the accused persons, and hence by his statement, the entire prosecution evidence cannot be thrown. But it is also possible that he was telling a truth before the trial Court. Under such a situation, the evidence given by the victim Jamni Bai (PW-1) and her husband Darua (PW-3) should be examined with great caution.
12. In support of the evidence given by the victims Jamni Bai and her husband Darua, the FIR can be read as a corroborative piece of evidence which was lodged by the complainant Jamni Bai after 4 ½ hours of the incident. Similarly, the testimony of the various doctors like Dr. Mahendra Khare (PW-2) and Dr. P.K.Jain (PW-10) may be considered. It is proved beyond doubt that both the victims sustained various injuries due to gun shot. Hence it is proved beyond doubt that someone assaulted the victims by firing from a gun, and therefore the offence under Sections 307, 458 of IPC was done by the culprits. But the entire testimony of the complainant and her husband is to be considered for the identification of the culprits.
13. As discussed above, the complainant and her husband could not prove any source of light at the time of the incident. Evidently, they were sleeping in their house and nobody chased the culprits. No independent witness saw the actual culprit soon after the incident when they were running from the spot. Jhallu Raja and other witnesses 9 Cri. A. No.1579/1996 came very late so that they could not see the culprits on their own. The prosecution has examined Narayan (PW-5) son of the victims to say that he was an eye-witness in the case and he could identify the culprits. However, looking to his case diary statement, it would be apparent that he did not claim before the police that he could identify the culprits; therefore it appears that Narayan (PW-5) was sleeping at the time of incident and he could not see the culprits of the incident. It is also strange that the victim Darua did not sustain any fatal or grievous injury in the incident and the incident took place on 23.9.1994 whereas his case diary statement was recorded on 21.10.1994. No reason has been shown about the delay in recording the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the victim Darua. Therefore, it appears that a false case is created against the appellants on the basis of suspicion.
14. There is a lot of contradiction between the statements given by the victims Jamni Bai (PW-1) and Darua (PW-3) with the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the victim Jamni Bai. In the FIR the victim Jamni Bai has clearly stated that there was only one firearm amongst all the four culprits and initially it was fired by the appellant Jivanlal, then appellant Chhotelal provided a cartridge to the Jivanlal and again he fired. Thereafter appellant Chhotelal took that katta from the appellant Jivanlal and he fired from the katta. Looking at the entire story mentioned in the FIR, it is duly 10 Cri. A. No.1579/1996 established that there was only one katta amongst the culprits, and therefore the police seized only katta in the case. But the victims Jamni Bai and Darua have stated before the trial Court that the appellants Chhotelal and Jivanlal had separate firearms with them and one more person had a firearm. This is a material contradiction between the statements of the victims and the version mentioned in the FIR. There is a lot of contradiction between the statements given by the victims Jamni Bai and Darua about the various fires done by the appellants Jivanlal or Chhotelal. Jamni Bai (PW-1) states that first fire was done while they were sleeping and thereafter appellant Chhotelal fired from a gun causing injury on the left shoulder of the victim Jamni Bai, whereas Jivanlal fired from the gun causing an injury in her thigh. Again Chhotelal fired three times causing injury on her head, whereas Jivanlal fired upon her husband causing injury on the shoulder of her husband, whereas Darua has stated that he sustained injury on his left shoulder caused by Chhotelal by firing. This is a material contradiction between the evidence given by the complainant Jamni Bai and her husband Darua. Jamni Bai says that it was Jivanlal who fired upon the victim Darua whereas Darua says that it was Chhotelal who fired upon him on his left scapular region. Such type of contradiction can arise if the victims could not see the actual culprits. The victims could not tell about the source 11 Cri. A. No.1579/1996 of light, and therefore there was no possibility that they could see the actual culprits. If there was a source of light available, then the culprits could fire upon the victims on their vital parts and both the victims could sustain some injuries on the chest or on some vital part of the body. Looking at the injuries of the victims, it appears that there was no source of light, and therefore the culprits could not have aimed upon the vital part of the body of these two victims. Under such circumstances, the testimony of the witness Jhallu Raja can be accepted that the victims could not see the actual culprits, and therefore they decided to allege the entire incident against the appellants due to enmity.
15. It is true that the evidence of witness Jhallu Raja cannot be accepted beyond doubt, as he has created a doubt that there was no source of light at the spot and the victim could not see the actual culprits. In this connection the statement of one Harcharan Yadav (PW-4) may also be considered, who was examined as a prosecution witness. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was also present when the victims were taken to the police station. They were injured and they were taken to the police station Badamalhara. He has also accepted that the victim Darua had told him that he had an enmity with the appellant Chhotelal, and therefore it would be proper to mention the name of Chhotelal and he had shown his suspicion against 12 Cri. A. No.1579/1996 the appellants to the witness Harcharan Yadav (PW-4). Though Harcharan Yadav was examined as a prosecution witness, but he was not declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor, and therefore being a prosecution witness, his testimony is binding on the prosecution. Under such circumstances, looking at the testimony of the witness Harcharan Yadav, it is proved beyond doubt that the victims Darua and Jamni Bai could not see the actual culprits and they named the appellants in the FIR on the basis of enmity. Looking at the statement of Harcharan Yadav, a strong doubt is created in the prosecution story and if a doubt is created, then benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused persons. It is not proved beyond doubt that the appellants were the persons who assaulted the victims by firing from various firearms or they entered into the house of the victims. Then the appellants could not be convicted for the offence under Sections 458 and 307 of IPC either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC. Similarly, the appellants could not be convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
16. It is not proved beyond doubt that the present appellants were the actual culprits, and therefore it cannot be said that they had any firearm with them in the night of 23/24.9.1994. They could not be convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act for that period. Inspector Pathak (PW-9) has stated that on interrogation the 13 Cri. A. No.1579/1996 appellant Jivanlal told about the cartridge which was recovered from him and the appellant Chhotelal told about handmade pistol and it was recovered. In the memo Ex.P-7 and P-8 witnesses Narayandas and Ramsanjivan were made witnesses and these witnesses were also made witnesses in the seizure memo Ex.P-9 and P-10. Out of these witnesses, Ramsanjivan (PW-7) was examined and he turned hostile, whereas the witness Narayandas was not examined. Looking at the evidence of witness Ramsanjivan, it appears that he was not an independent witness of the locality. He was resident of village Bamni, which was 25 kms away from Village Bandha, and therefore it would be clear that the Inspector Shri Pathak took a patent witness in the case and still those witnesses turned hostile. Therefore, the testimony of the Inspector Pathak cannot be believed beyond doubt and it is not proved beyond doubt that any cartridge was seized from the appellant Jivanlal or any handmade pistol was seized from the appellant Chhotelal.
17. It is very strange that neither the firearm nor the cartridge was not sent for its examination to the Reserved Inspector so that such articles could be examined by the competent Armer. No such report has been filed with the charge sheet. Such article was sent to the FSL but no FSL report is ever exhibited in the case, and therefore it is not proved beyond doubt that the seized property was either a firearm or ammunition. Under such circumstances, the 14 Cri. A. No.1579/1996 appellants could not be convicted for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act on the basis of seizure.
18. Again it is to be considered that the prosecution sanction Ex.P-17 given by the then DM Shri Julaniya does not appear to be given according to the law. In the order Ex.P-17, the entire discussion and opinion relating to the sanction was already mentioned in a cyclostyle format. Name of the accused persons with the seized property were filled up in cyclostyle manner in the format prepared in general, and therefore it cannot be said that Shri Julariya exercised his judicial discretion in grant of prosecution sanction, and therefore it was not a valid prosecution sanction in the eye of law. In absence of valid prosecution sanction, the appellants could not be tried or convicted for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
19. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellants were the culprits who assaulted the victims by firing from a gun or they had any firearm or ammunition. The appellants cannot be convicted for any offence though they were convicted by the trial Court. Hence the appeal filed by the appellants can be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby allowed. The conviction as well as the sentence directed for the offence under Sections 458, 307 of IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act is hereby set aside. The 15 Cri. A. No.1579/1996 appellants are acquitted from all the charges appended against them by giving the benefit of doubt.
20. The appellants are on bail during the trial. Their presence is no more required before this Court, and therefore it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
21. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court with its record for information.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge 21/12/2012 Ansari