Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramsevak Kori vs State Of M.P. on 3 May, 2018
Author: G.S. Ahluwalia
Bench: G.S. Ahluwalia
1 CRA Nos.552/2011 & 562/2011
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA
Criminal Appeal No.552/2011
.........Appellant: Ramsevak Kori
Versus
.......Respondent : State of M.P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Brajesh Sharma, Counsel for the appellant.
Shri BPS Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
&
Criminal Appeal No.562/2011
.........Appellant: Rajkumar Chaudhary @
Rinku
Versus
.......Respondent : State of M.P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
None for the appellant.
Shri BPS Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing : 26/04/2018
Date of Judgment : 03/05/2018
Whether approved for reporting :
JUDGMENT
(03/05/2018) This common judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.552/2011 filed by the accused Ramsevak Kori and Criminal Appeal No.562/2011 filed by the accused Raj Kumar Chaudhary @ Rinku.
These criminal appeals have been filed by the appellant 2 CRA Nos.552/2011 & 562/2011 Ramsevak Kori as well as by Rajkumar Chaudhary @ Rinku challenging the correctness and propriety of judgment dated 27.6.2011 passed by Special Judge, MPDVPK Act, Shivpuri in Special Sessions Trial No.74/2009 by which the appellant Ramsevak has been convicted under Section 25(1-B) (a) of Arms Act and the appellant Rajkumar Chaudhary @ Rinku has been convicted under Section 25(1-B) (b) of Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs.1000/-.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeals in short are that the appellants were tried for an offence under Sections 399, 400, 402 of IPC read with Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act apart from offence under Sections 25(1- B) (a), 25(1-B) (b) of Arms Act r/w Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act. According to the prosecution case, on 28.6.2009 at about 2:15 in the night the appellants along with the other co- accused persons were arrested by the police while they were allegedly making preparation for committing dacoity and at the time of arrest, the police had seized a sword from appellant Raj Kumar which was 2.7 inches long and the appellant Raj Kumar was not having any license to possess the same. A country made pistol was seized from the possession of appellant Ramsevak. The police after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet for offence under Sections 399, 400, 402 of IPC, under Section 25/27 of Arms Act and under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.
The Trial Court by order dated 9.3.2010 framed the charges under Sections 399 of IPC r/w Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act, 400 of IPC r/w Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act, 402 of IPC r/w Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act, 25(1-B) (b) of Arms Act r/w Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act against the appellant Raj Kumar whereas apart from the other offences framed the charge under Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act against the 3 CRA Nos.552/2011 & 562/2011 appellant Ramsevak in place of charge under Section 25(1-B)
(b) of Arms Act. The charges against the other co-accused persons were also framed. The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution in order to prove its case examined, Ranvir Singh Bhadoriya (PW-1), Surendra Singh (PW-2), Balkrishna (PW-3), Sunil (PW-4), G.R. Kukreja (PW-5), Shivbodh Singh (PW-6), Kunjbihari (PW-7), Pradeep Rajouriya (PW-8), Harnam Singh Rawat (PW-9) and Mahendra (PW-10).
The appellants examined Om Prakash Mishra (DW-01) in their defence.
The Trial Court after recording the evidence of the witnesses and after considering the allegations as well as the evidence led by the prosecution, acquitted the appellants and Tejbhan for offence under Sections 399, 400, 402 of IPC r/w Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act. However, convicted the appellant Ramsevak under Section 25(1-B) (a) of Arms Act and convicted the appellant Raj Kumar under Section 25(1-B) (b) of Arms Act.
The acquittal of the appellants as well as the co-accused Tejbhan Singh for offence under Sections 399, 400, 402 of IPC r/w Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act has not been challenged by the State.
It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant Ramsevak that once the Trial Court itself had found that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellants and other co-accused persons had assembled for making preparation for committing dacoity, then the seizure of weapons i.e. a country made pistol and sword from the possession of the appellants Ramsevak and appellant Raj Kumar would also become doubtful because when the main offence of assembling with an intention to making preparation for committing dacoity is not proved, then the arrest of the appellants from the place of the incident where 4 CRA Nos.552/2011 & 562/2011 the accused persons had assembled for making preparation for committing dacoity and the seizure of weapons would also become doubtful and under these circumstances, the Trial Court should not have convicted the appellants for the offence under Sections 25(1-B) (a) or 25(1-B) (b) of Arms Act.
None appears for the appellant Raj Kumar who has been convicted under Section 25(1-B) (b) of Arms Act. Since the arguments advanced by Ramsevak would apply to the case of Raj Kumar in its entirety, therefore, the case of the appellant Ramsevak as well as the case of the appellant Rajkumar are considered.
Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent/State that merely because the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellants had assembled for making preparation for committing dacoity would not ipso facto mean that the recovery of weapons were not made and, therefore, the Trial Court did not commit any mistake in convicting the appellants for the offence under Sections 25(1-B) (a) and 25(1-B) (b) of Arms Act.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The undisputed fact is that so far as the acquittal of the appellants as well as the co-accused Tejbhan Singh is concerned, since the acquittal of these persons for offence under Section 399, 400, 402 of IPC r/w Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act has not been challenged, therefore, the finding given by the Trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants and the co- accused Tejbhan Singh had assembled with an intention of making preparation for committing dacoity has attained finality. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellants and the co-accused Tejbhan Singh had assembled in the forest area of Toriya Maanpur on 20.6.2009 at 2.55 AM. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellants 5 CRA Nos.552/2011 & 562/2011 were arrested from the spot along with the illegal weapons. Once the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellants had assembled in the forest area of Toriya Maanpur, then the arrest of the appellant from the said area at 12:55 AM in the night on 20.6.2009 also become doubtful.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court was not right in holding that merely because the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants under Sections 399, 400, 402 of IPC r/w Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act, therefore, the recovery of the weapons from the appellants would not automatically become doubtful. It is well established principle of law that "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India. The Courts must try to remove the grain from the chaff but where the allegations are so interconnected and are so interdependent where it is not possible to take out the grain from the chaff, then the benefit of doubt must go in favour of the accused. In the present case, when the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellants had assembled in the forest area of Toriya Maanpur on 20.6.2009 at 2:55 AM in the night, then the arrest and seizure of the weapons of the appellants from the said area in the night also becomes doubtful.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the commission of main offence for making preparation for committing dacoity could not be proved by the prosecution, then the recovery would also ipso facto become doubtful and thus the appellant Ramsevak is held not guilty of committing an offence under Section 25(1-B) (a) of Arms Act and the appellant Raj Kumar is held not guilty of offence under Section 25(1-B) (b) of Arms Act.
According, they are acquitted of the said charges. Consequently, the judgment and sentence dated 27.6.2011 passed by Special Judge, MPDVPK Act, Shivpuri in Special 6 CRA Nos.552/2011 & 562/2011 Sessions Trial No.74/2009 is hereby set aside. The appellants are on bail, therefore, their bail bonds are discharged. The appellants are set at liberty and now they are not required in the present case. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No. 552/2011 filed by Ramsevak Kori and Criminal Appeal No.562/2011 filed by Raj Kumar Chaudhary @ Rinku succeeds and are hereby allowed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
Judge
(alok) 03/05/2018
Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2018.05.03 18:02:44 +05'30'