Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 277 (MP)

Jumman Gond v. State of M. P.

2003-02-13

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2003
JUDGMENT This Revision Petition has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panna, convicting the applicants u/s 382 of the IPC as well as U/S 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and passing sentence to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 100/-, Rigorous Imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 100/- and Rigorous Imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- respectively. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been affirmed in Appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in Criminal Appeal No. 93/94 dated 12.3.1997. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 13.12.1989, PW 3 - Ram Naresh Dwivedi, Ranger, Forest received information from the informant that the applicants were going to cut bamboo in the government forest area, Panna. On receiving this information, he alongwith other persons, went to the forest and found that on Coup No. 1368, near Jhumra Nala, applicants were present having single bore gun, they were also possessing bamboo and teak wood log. As soon as the forest officers tried to arrest them, they gave threat to kill, any how, the employees of the forest department succeeded to snatch their guns, bambooes and log of teak wood. On 14.12.1989, a written complaint was made by the said Ranger Ram Naresh Dwivedi. On the basis of the report, the First Information Report (Ex. P-9) was registered and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. The learned trial Judge framed the charges punishable u/s 382 of the IPC as well as u/ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The applicants denied the charges and pleaded their innocence. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and placed the documents - Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-17 on record. The learned trial judge, after appreciating and marshalling the evidence, came to the conclusion that the applicants did commit the offence for which they were charged and eventually passed the sentence against them which has been mentioned herein above. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the applicants preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panna, who on 12.3.1997 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction. The applicants had thus filed this Revision petition. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the applicants preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panna, who on 12.3.1997 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction. The applicants had thus filed this Revision petition. In this revision, Shri L.N. Sakle, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Courts below erred in law by convicting the applicants because the prosecution failed to examine any independent witness. The alternative submission is that the applicants had already suffered sentence of one month, the amount of fine imposed has already been deposited by them. Thus, it has been submitted by Shri Sakle that for the ends of justice, this would be the sufficient punishment. Per contra, Smt. Chanchal Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the State submitted that learned Courts below did not err in convicting the applicants, the judgment of the Courts below is based on appreciation of the evidence which is not permissible to be re-appreciated under the revisional jurisdiction. It has also been submitted that there is no infirmity in the testimony of PW 3 - Ram Naresh Dwivedi and PW 8 - Krishna Moorthy, and therefore, merely they are departmental witnesses, their testimony cannot be wiped of. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for parties. Learned counsel for the applicant is unable to persuade me that why and on what account, the testimony of Ram Naresh Dwivedi and Krishna Moorthy should be discarded. Merely because they are departmental witnesses, it cannot be said that their testimony should be disbelieved. The testimony of these witnesses are clear, cogent and credit-worthy. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in paragraph 5 of its judgment has taken into account all these contention, by placing reliance on certain decisions of this Court. I see no reason to deviate myself from the reasons assigned by the Courts below. Hence, in my opinion, the learned Courts below did not err in convicting the applicant for the offences u/s 382 of the IPC as well as u/ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The second contention of Shri Sakle is considered. It has been submitted by him that the applicants had suffered jail sentence of one month, they have also deposited the amount of fine in the trial Court. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The second contention of Shri Sakle is considered. It has been submitted by him that the applicants had suffered jail sentence of one month, they have also deposited the amount of fine in the trial Court. This position has not been disputed by Smt. Chanchal Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the State. Looking to the age of the case, as the incident had taken place long back in 1993, it will not be justifiable to send the applicants again in the jail. Hence, the sentence is modified to the period they had already undergone. In the result, this Revision Petition succeeds in part, the judgment of conviction is hereby affirmed, however, the sentence is modified as indicated herein above.