Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 207 (MP)

Ranvir Gadariya v. State of M. P.

2005-02-09

SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2005
JUDGMENT This judgment shall govern disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 635/02 (Ranvir and two others v. State of Madhya Pradesh), Criminal Appeal No. 560/02 (Udaysingh v. State of Madhya Pradesh) and Criminal Appeal No. 643/02 (Jagdish Gadariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh). All these appeals arc filed by the accused persons challenging judgment dated 8.10.2002 delivered by Special Judge, Shivpuri, in Sessions Trial No. 44/02 whereby the accused-appellants in all the three appeals have been convicted under sections 399, 400 and 402 read with sections 11 and 13 of the MPDVPK Act and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 200/- each on each count Accused-appellants, Ranvir Gadariya and Dayaluram Gadariya have also been convicted under section 25(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- each. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The brief facts of the case are that P.L. Prajapati was posted at Police Station Narwar as Sub-Inspector of Police on 12.2.2002. On that date at about 10: 10 p.m., he received an information to the effect that 4-5 persons are sitting on the hills of Sagoli and are preparing plan for dacoity. He noted the information at Rojnamcha Sanha at number 398/12.2.2002 and went on the spot alongwith police force. They found 5 accused persons sitting behind a big stone and bushes. They had put fire for protecting themselves from cold. They were preparing a plan for committing dacoity at the house of Laxmansingh Thakur at Sagoli. One of those persons had a Mauzer with him. Witness Hotamsingh had heard their talks. The police party arrested five persons. One of them, on asking, disclosed his name as Jagdish who had a 315 bore rifle and five live cartridges with him, second accused was Udaysingh who had a luhangi with him, third accused was Ranvirsingh who was armed with 12 bore gun and two live cartridges, fourth accused was Kundansingh who had a pharsa with him and fifth accused was Kaptansingh who was armed with a luhangi. All the five accused persons were arrested by the police and a panchnama Ex. P-6, was prepared about their arrest and police also prepared panchnamas about the recoveries. After completion of investigation, a challan against the accused persons was filed. All the five accused persons were arrested by the police and a panchnama Ex. P-6, was prepared about their arrest and police also prepared panchnamas about the recoveries. After completion of investigation, a challan against the accused persons was filed. The trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for commission of offence under sections 399. 400 and402 read with sections II and 13 of the MPDVPK Act. Charge under section 25(1B) (a) of the Arms Act was also framed against accused Ranvir and Jagdish. The trial Court, after recording of statements of the prosecution witnesses and defence witness Soneram (DW 1), found the accused persons guilty and convicted them as stated above. To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW 1 Hotam. He stated that he was called by the police on the date of incident and asked him to accompany the police to the hills of Sagoli. He stated that he saw five persons assembled there and due to cold they had put fire. The police force was divided in two teams and arrested the accused persons. He is also a witness to the panchnamas Exs. P-1 to P-6. PW 2 is P.L. Prajapati, who is Sub-Inspector at Narwar Police Station. He stated that he had received an information at about 10: 10 p.m. that 4-5 persons are sitting on hills of Sagoli and are preparing plan for committing dacoity. He had recorded the said information in Rojnamacha Sanha and went on the spot at about 10:30 p.m. He found there some persons sitting surrounding fire and smoking bidis. He stated that he could hear their voices. The police thereafter surrounded them and arrested them. PW 3 is Vishwanath Vaisya who had recorded dehati nalishi, Ex. P-7 on the spot and first information report, Ex. P-8. PW 4 is Komal Prasad, who is Head Constable and had accompanied the police force to the hills of Sagoli and arrested five accused persons. According to him, these persons were armed with weapons and were preparing a plan for dacoity. PW 6 is Lalaram Jatav who was posted in the Arms Section in the Collectorate at Shivpuri. PW 6 is Janki Prasad Goud who is a constable in police and had inspected a gun and prepared a report Ex. P-13. According to him, these persons were armed with weapons and were preparing a plan for dacoity. PW 6 is Lalaram Jatav who was posted in the Arms Section in the Collectorate at Shivpuri. PW 6 is Janki Prasad Goud who is a constable in police and had inspected a gun and prepared a report Ex. P-13. From perusal of the entire evidence on record it appears that the present accused-appellants were sitting near the hills of Sagoli which is a lonely area. However, neither PW 1 Hotamsingh nor PW 2 P.L. Prajapati or any other witness have stated that they had heard the talks between the accused persons regarding preparing a plan for committing dacoity. In absence of this evidence, it cannot be said that these accused persons had assembled there with an intention to commit dacoity at the house of Laxmansingh as alleged by the prosecution. From the perusal of the statements of the witnesses about recovery of arms is concerned there is nothing on record to disbelieve the statements of the witnesses. Hence, it is found that the accused-appellants were sitting on the hills with their arms. As there is absolutely no evidence to show that any person had overheard their talks and the informer is not examined during trial in the case and there is no one who had overheard the talks of the accused persons, I find that offence for preparing a plan for committing dacoity is not proved. Hence, the sentence imposed upon the accused-appellants for commission of offence under sections 399,400 and 402 read with sections 11 and 13 of the MPDVPK Act are set aside but their conviction under section 25(1B) (a) of the Arms Act is maintained. The accused-appellants have already undergone imprisonment for 27 months. The maximum sentence for commission of the said offence is three years' rigorous imprisonment. Considering these facts and the fact that the accused-appellants have already undergone. 27 months' rigorous imprisonment and have deposited the amount of fines, I reduce the sentence of each of the accused-appellants to the sentences already undergone by them. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.