Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Balram & Anr Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.5079 of 2019)

30. M.K. Gautam (P.W. 5) had arrested the appellants vide arrest memo Ex. P.7 and P.8. The memorandum of Balram, Ex. P.9 was recorded. Similarly the memorandum of Ramjilal, Ex. P.10 was recorded. Accordingly, one sword was seized from Balram vide seizure memo Ex. P.11. Article A is the same sword. Similarly, one iron Katar was seized from the possession of Ramjilal vide seizure memo Ex. P.12 and Article B is the same Katar. The seized articles were sent to R.F.S.L. Gwalior along with memo. This witness was cross-examined.

In cross-examination, he stated that the case diary was pending for the arrest of the appellants since long. Both the appellants were arrested from their house situated in Nai Basti, Jhansi. Both the appellants were together.

31. Jitendra (P.W. 8) who was the witness of arrest, memorandum and seizure, has turned hostile.

32. Dharmendra Parihar (P.W. 9) is the witness of arrest, memorandum and seizure. This witness has stated that the appellants were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P.7 and Ex P.8. The memorandum of Balram, Ex. 9 and memorandum of Ramjilal, Ex. P.10 were recorded. Sword was seized from Balram vide seizure memo, Ex. P.11 and Katar was seized from the possession of Ramjilal, Ex. P. 12. This witness was cross-examined.

On cross-examination, this witness stated that it is true that the police station was surrounded by the mob. However, he further stated that he was not posted in the police station at that time.

34. Himanshu Chaturvedi (P.W. 12) is a police constable. He has stated that on 18-1-2009, he was posted in Police Station Bhonti. On the said date, he earlier took the injured/deceased to Primary Health Centre, Manpura, from where the Doctor referred the injured to Distt. Hospital, Shivpuri. Thereafter, he took the injured along with referral letter to District Hospital Shivpuri where the deceased Mohan Singh was declared dead. The cloths of the deceased were handed over to him by District Hospital Shivpuri in sealed condition and he handed over the sealed packet along with specimen of seal to Bahadur Singh Raghuvanshi who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. P.15. The original seizure memo is Ex. P.3 which is annexed in Trial No.106/09. He went to P.H.C., Manpura along with M.L.C. requisition. The Distt. Hosptial Shivpuri had handed over merg report no.4/09, P.M. Balram & Anr Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.5079 of 2019) report and referral letter. Bahadur Singh Raghuvanshi, lodged merg no. 2/09 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. at Police Station Bhonti The police outpost, Shivpuri Hospital had also given the requisition given by Distt. Hospital. This witness was cross-examined.

43. It is submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that it appears that after the incident, an agitation took place in the police station and accordingly, Rakesh Sharma (P.W. 13) who was the then S.H.O., Police Station Bhonti was placed under suspension. Thereafter, Narendra Sharma (P.W. 11) had done tainted investigation under the political influence.

44. Considered the submissions of the Counsel for the appellants. Accordingly to Rakesh Sharma (P.W. 13) he had recorded the statement of Indrapal Singh on 18-1-2009 itself. Since, Indrapal Singh had turned hostile, therefore, his statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC was marked as Ex. P1. The contents of Ex. P.1 and FIR, Ex. P.4C are same. Further more, Mohan Singh was declared dead on 18-1-2009 itself, but it appears that Rakesh Sharma (P.W.14) did not add Section 302 of IPC. It also appears that no proper investigation was being done by Rakesh Sharma (P.W. 13) and therefore, there was an agitation and accordingly to appellants Balram & Anr Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.5079 of 2019) Rakesh Sharma was also suspended. Further, it is clear from the police statement of Indrapal Singh, Ex. P.1, that it bears the signatures of Radhe, Chillu, Krishna Bihari and Indrapal. Since, this statement bears the signatures of the witnesses, therefore, the contents of this statement would be hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C., but one thing is clear that all the eye-witnesses namely Radhe, Chillu, Indrapal and Krishna Bihari were available, but the statements of Radhe, Chillu and Krishna Bihari Singh Tomar were not recorded. Thus, it appears that there was some deliberate omissions by Rakesh Sharma (P.W. 13).