Madhya Pradesh High Court
Umesh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 10 September, 2013
Author: A.K. Shrivastava
Bench: A.K. Shrivastava
1 Cr.Rev. No.1285 of 2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH:
Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava
CRIMINAL REVISION No.1285 of 2013
APPLICANTS: 1. Umesh Singh S/o Shri
Viswanath Singh, Aged about
37 years, R/o Village Kudari,
P/s Kotwaali Shahdol District
Shahdol (M.P.)
2. Dharmendra @ Meenu Singh
S/o Shri Jaipal Singh, Aged
about 32 years, R/o Village
Jamui, P/s & District Shahdol ,
M.P.
3. Amit Singh, S/o Shri Vishnu
Pratap Singh, Aged about 32
years, R/o Pandavnagar, Ward
no.6, P/s and District Shahdol,
M.P.
4. Lalan Singh, S/o Shri Bhanu
Pratap Singh, Aged about 45
years, R/o Pandavnagar, Ward
no.6, P/s and District Shahdol,
M.P.
5. Jagdeep Singh @ Jagrit Singh,
S/o Late Shri Devendra Pratap
Singh, Aged about 49 years, R/
o Pandavnagar, P/s and District
Shahdol,M.P.
6. Babloo Singh Gond, S/o Shri
Jaan Singh Gond, Aged about
25 years, R/o Venkatnagar, P/s
Jaitahari, District Anuppur, M.P.
7. Ballu Verkade,S/o Shri Rooplal
Verkade, Aged about 23 years,
2 Cr.Rev. No.1285 of 2013
R/o Lakhnadaun, District Seoni,
M.P.
8. Rakesh Yadav,S/o Shri
Gareeba Yadav, Aged about 20
years, R/o Village Pipariya, P/s
and District Shahdol,M.P.
9. Awadhesh Yadav, S/o Shri
Shankarlal Yadav, Aged about
21 years, R/o Venkatnagar, P/s
Jaitahari, District Anuppur, M.P.
10. Ruggu Khairwar, S/o Shri
Dayaram, Aged about 35
years, R/o village Amiliha, P/s
Pali, District Umariya, M.P.
Versus
RESPONDENT: State of M.P., Through P/s
Kotwaali Shahdol, District
Shahdol, M.P.
___________________________________________________
Shri Akhil Singh, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Anubhav Jain, Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
ORDER
(10.09.2013) Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17.4.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Trial No.126/2012 inter alia framing charge under Section 395/397 of IPC against the applicants, this revision application has been preferred by the applicants.
2. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that if 3 Cr.Rev. No.1285 of 2013 the written complaint Annexure A/2 lodged by the complainant - Lalita Devi dated 14.4.2012 upon which the FIR has been registered is taken into consideration in true perspective, no one could say that any of the ingredients evisaged under Section 395 and 397 of IPC are made out and if that is the position the learned Trial Court committed an error in framing charge under Section 395 and 397 of IPC against the applicants.
3. On the other hand Shri Anubhav Jain, learned Panel Lawyer argued in support of the impugned order.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision deserves to be allowed.
5. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that only against framing of charges under Sections 395/397 IPC, they have filed this revision application and they have not filed the revision application against framing of the charges of other offences.
6. On bare perusal of the report Annexure A/2 of the complainant, nowhere it is mentioned in it that any theft has been committed by any of the applicant who are more than five in number. The definition of dacoity has been given in Section 391 of IPC which reads thus :
"391. Dacoity.- When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or 4 Cr.Rev. No.1285 of 2013 where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit "dacoity".
7. At this juncture, the definition of robbery be also taken into consideration which reads thus :
"390. Robbery.- In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery.-- Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
When extortion is robber.-- Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person orto some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted."
8. If these two provisions are kept in juxtaposition to the written complaint Annexure A/2 and read conjointly, since none of the 5 Cr.Rev. No.1285 of 2013 ingredients of Sections 395 and 397 of IPC are mentioned in the report, therefore, according tome, the learned Trial Court has erred in framing the aforesaid charge.
9. At this juncture, Shri Akhil Singh, learned counsel for the applicants further invited my attention to Annexure A/4 dated 28.4.2012 which is a report of Deputy Director, Prosecution addressed to Police Station Kotwali opining that since the ingredients of Section 395/397 of IPC are lacking from the complaint, these charges be deleted from the charge sheet. However, the same was not accepted by the Superintendent of Police Annexure A/5 dated 1.5.2012. Be that as it may. Since I have allowed the revision on merit holding that from the written complaint no offence under Sections 395/397 of IPC is made out against the applicants, therefore, I am not dealing this argument.
10. For the reasons stated herein above, this revision application is allowed and the charges framed against the applicants under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the applicants are discharged from the said charge.
(A.K.Shrivastava) Judge 10.09.2013 DV 6 Cr.Rev. No.1285 of 2013