Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(Delivered on 09/05/2022) Per Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J:-

This judgment shall also govern disposal of CRA 885 of 2011 [Narayan, Son of Chhadami Kushwah vs. State of MP], CRA 898 of 2011[Pancham Singh, Son of Channi Jatav & Others Vs. State of MP], CRA 100 of 2012 [Son of Bhambar Singh Mirdha vs. State of MP] & CRA 666 of 2012 [Udal Singh, Son of Patiram Kushwah vs. State of MP] preferred under Section 374 of CrPC.

(2) Vide Judgment dated 08/08/2011 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act,1981) Gwalior (MP) in Special Sessions Trial No. 70 of 2004, appellants accused Pancham Singh, Kalyan alias Kallu Gurjar, Narayan Kushwah, Narayan Singh Mirdha, Punjab Singh Gurjar have been convicted under Section 364-A IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and under Section 365 IPC, sentenced to undergo Five Years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.300/- each, with default stipulation whereas appellants Gariba alias Hanumant Singh Jatav and Tunda alias Rajesh Jatav have been convicted under Section 364-A r/w 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and under Section 365 r/w Section 120-B IPC r/w Section 13 of MPDVPK Act and sentenced to undergo Five Years RI with fine of Rs.300/-, with default stipulation. Both sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(3) As appellant accused Udal Singh Kushwah had been absconded during trial, therefore, a separate judgment dated 28/06/2012 has been passed in the same Special Sessions Trial No.70 of 2004 by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act, 1981) Gwalior by which appellant accused Udal Singh has been convicted under Section 364-A IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and under Section 365 IPC r/w Section 13 of MPDVPK Act, sentenced to undergo Five Years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.300/- with default stipulation. Both sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(4) Since the factual matrix in all criminal appeals is same, therefore, for the sake of convenience, all criminal appeals are heard simultaneously.

(5) According to prosecution case, complainant Laxman Singh (PW3) lodged a report at Police Station Bijoli on 16-02-2004 to the effect that his tube-well in the agricultural field situated at the turn of Village Berja. His nephew Gopal (since abductee) had gone to sleep at the tube-well after having dinner in the night at around 10:00 O'clock and on the next day, Gopal did not return home till 10:00 O'clock in the morning. Thereafter, Ramveer brought food at the tube-well where Gopal was not found available. Then, Ramveer informed in the house that Gopal was not found present at tube-well. Afterwards, Gopal was searched at the place of Haridwari [who is brother-in-law of Gopal] but he was not found. The people of village also arrived there. Gopal was searched again at the tube-well and a key was found lying outside the gate and a lathi was also lying nearby and one of the shoes of Gopal was also found lying and the mustard crops in the field was found here and there. In this regard, a missing report vide Crime No.4/2004 was got registered and investigation was started. During investigation, it was found that said Gopal was abducted for a ransom and causing death. On that basis, Crime No.42/2004 under Section 364-A of IPC was got registered against five- six miscreants at PS Bijoli. Prakash [the brother of Gopal] and relative Jagat Singh went to Mau and Kheriya to search Gopal out and in Village Kheriya, Karan Singh told that Gopal has been kidnapped by Pancham Jatav, Narayan Kachhi, Udal Singh Kachhi, Narayan Singh Mirdha, Kalyan Singh Gurjar and Sumer Kachhi (died during pendency of trial). Thereafter, on reaching Village Kheriya, they met Udal Kachhi who demanded Rs.5 lac for the purpose of release of abductee Gopal. Thereafter, Jagat Singh and Prakash along with accused Udal Kachhi went to the forest of Lokanpur where abductors- miscreants were seen. Abductee Gopal was recovered from captivity of abductor- miscreant Pancham Singh & other miscreants on 12-03-2004 from the forest of Lokanpur by Police Station Dirolipar, District Datia in respect which, a recovery memo Ex.P1 was prepared. Abductee Gopal was handed over to his brother Prakash on Supurdignma vide Ex.P2. Accused Pancham Jatav, Narayan Singh and co-accused Lalkunwar Bai were arrested from forest. On the basis of memorandum of Narayan Kachhi, a 12 bore single barrel gun was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P9 and a single barrel gun with 15 cartridges out of which two empty cartridges and fourteen live cartridges were recovered from the possession of accused Pancham Singh vide seizure memo Ex.P10. Statement of abductee Gopal (PW1) was reordered wherein he stated that he was kidnapped by miscreants Pancham Jatav, Narayan Kachhi, Narayan Mirdha, Udal Kachhi, Kalyan alias Kallu, Sumer Kachhi and Gariba alias Hanumant Singh who had demanded Rs.5 for the purpose of his release. Accused Kalyan alias Kallu was arrested on 05-04-2004 vide arrest memo Ex.P12, Udal Kushwah was arrested on 06-04-2004 vide arrest memo Ex.P13, Gariba alias Hanumant Singh was arrested on 10- 04-2004 vide arrest memo Ex.P14, Sumer Kachhi was arrested on 19-03-2004 vide arrest Ex.P15, Tunda alias Rajesh was arrested on 28-04-2004 vide arrest memo Ex.P16, Narayan Singh Mirdha was arrested on 19-06-2004 vide arrest memo Ex.P17 and Punjab Singh was arrested on 27-06-2004 vide arrest memo Ex.P18. After completion of investigation and other formalities, a charge sheet was filed before the Court concerned. (6) Charges of Sections 364-A, 365 IPC r/w Section 13 of MPDVPK Act against Pancham, Narayan Mirdha, Narayan Singh Kushwah. Kalyan alias Kallu, Punjab Singh, Udal Singh and charges of Section 364-A, in the alternate 120-B of IPC r/w Section 364-A of IPC and Section 365, in alternative Section 120- B r/w Section 365, as also read with Section 13 of MPDVPK Act, 1981 against accused persons Lalkunwar Bai, Gariba alias Hanumant Singh and Tunda alias Rajesh were read over and explained.

(8) Prosecution in order to support of it case, has examined as many as seven witnesses, i.e. abductee Gopal Singh (PW1), Khacheru (PW2), Laxman (PW3), Prakash (PW4), Hari Singh (PW5), Bheekaram (PW6) and Pradeep Ranouria (PW7) (9) It is contended on behalf of appellants that the prosecution has shown about demand of Rs.5 lac as ransom amount respect of release of abductee Gopal but such evidence is not available on record. In para 1 of his examination-in-chief abductee stated that Rs.2 lac to accused Narayan Mirdha whereas in para 5 and 8 of his evidence abductee stated that he did not say about giving Rs.2 lac as ransom amount to the police and deposed first for the time being in force before the Court which is under suspicious and the prosecution has failed to prove in respect of any kind of demand of ransom or providing amount of ransom.There are contradictions and omissions in the Court statement and police statement of the abductee recorded u/S 161 CrPC. It is further contended that although abductee Gopal in his police diary statement admitted that prior to the incident he had known the accused but the trial Court has erred in convicting the accused on the basis of identification made in the Court. No threaten was given to the family members of complainant to cause death or hurt to abductee or caused an apprehension to cause death or hurt of abductee, therefore, no case under Section 364-A of IPC is made out against the accused. The test identification of accused by the abductee was not properly conducted by the prosecution. The accused have been falsely implicated due to the previous enmity on election. No evidence of independent witnesses was produced by the prosecution in order to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is also contended that on the one hand, abductee in his examination-in-chief deposed that he had known very-well the accused and on the other hand, the abductee in his cross-examination admitted that he had known accused because of their talking each other's name, therefore, his evidence is not reliable. It is further contended that there was a previous election dispute between abductee Gopal and accused by which accused Narayan Mirdha has been falsely implicated and the abductee has deposed that at the time of incident accused Narayan Singh Mirdha was not present. The learned Trial Court has not considered these aspects while passing the impugned judgment. On these grounds, the same deserves to be set aside. (10) On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State 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 inference by this Court. Hence, prayed for dismissal of appeals.