Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1164 (MP)

Punttai v. Punttai v. State of M. P.

2006-09-29

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA, S.R.WAGHMARE

body2006
JUDGMENT Shrivastava, J. -- 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.10.2000 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 265/98 convicting the appellant under section 364-A, IPC and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment of life, the appellant has knocked the door of this Court by preferring this appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 1.8.1998 Asharam s/o Achchhelal and Ramesh s/o Chatra were going to Jangal to graze the cattle and when they reached nearby Khirka at 7:00 in the morning, they met with one Shankar Yadav who also joined them as he was also grazing the cattle. When they were on the way in between village Khirka and Gonkhar, nearby stop-dam they met appellant and four other persons. Appellant and these four persons wrongfully restrained them. Appellant was having a lathi and other co-accused persons were having double barrel gun, 'Ballam' and 'Farsa' and on the point of these weapons, appellant carried these persons in the Jangal and through Shankar Yadav sent message to send lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/-. The message was also sent that in case the lump sum amount is not sent, these two persons would be killed. 3. The family members of Asharam and Ramesh on receiving {he message, along with inhabitants of the village went to the Jangal, but they did not find Asharam and Ramesh, eventually, a written report was lodged by Achchhelal who is father of Asharam in the police station. In the written report it has been specifically stated that appellant was having lathi and other accused persons were having double barrel gun, 'Ballam' and 'Farsa' and a demand of Rs.50,000/- for each abductee has been made. The police on the basis of FIR, registered a case under section 365, IPC. 4. It is the further case of prosecution that any how the abducted namely Asharam and Ramesh came out from the grip of the accused persons and thereafter their statement under section 161, CrPC were recorded on 11.8.1998. The police on the basis of FIR, registered a case under section 365, IPC. 4. It is the further case of prosecution that any how the abducted namely Asharam and Ramesh came out from the grip of the accused persons and thereafter their statement under section 161, CrPC were recorded on 11.8.1998. Police party succeeded in arresting the appellant, as a result of which a charge sheet was submitted against the appellant in the competent Court which, on its turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions from where it was received by the trial Court for trial. 5. Learned trial Judge on perusing the averments made against the appellant framed charge punishable under section 364-A, IPC and further framed charge punishable under section 25 (1-B) (a) of the Arms Act. Needless to emphasise, the appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded complete innocence. His defence is of maladroit implication. 6. In order to bring home the charges, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and placed Ex. P-l to P-9, the documents, on record. Though in the statement recorded under section 313, CrPC the appellant set up the defence of false implication, but did not adduce any evidence in support of his defence. 7. Learned trial Judge, after appreciating and marshaling the evidence, came to hold that the appellant did commit the offence for which he was charged and, eventually, convicted him and passed the sentence which we have mentioned hereinabove. 8. In this manner, present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him. 9. It has been submitted by Shri A.K. Chourasia, learned counsel for the appellant, that if the police statement of abductees namely Asharam and Ramesh Ex. D-2 and D-3 is considered in proper perspective and on the touch stone of the evidence which has been given by Asharam and Ramesh in the Court, it would reveal that appellant has been falsely implicated because in their police statement it has been specifically stated by these two persons that police party arrived in the Jangal and on seeing the police party, appellant and other accused persons fled from the spot and in this manner they were released. However, when these two witnesses examined as PW 3 and PW 4 in the Court, they have totally deviated from the stand which they have taken in their police statement Ex. D-2 and D-3 and, therefore, this serious infirmity puts deep dent on the veracity of the case of prosecution which goes to the root of the matter. Hence it has been submitted by learned counsel that this appeal be allowed by acquitting the appellant. 10. Per contra, Shri T.K. Modh, learned Dy. Advocate General, has argued in support of the impugned judgment. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 12. On going through the statement of PW 3 Asharam and PW 4 Ramesh who were abductees, it is gathered that they were abducted by appellant and other co-accused persons and they were kept in the Jangal for three days. Accused persons were having double barrel gun, lathi, 'Farsa' and 'Ballam' etc. Though the accused persons did not tie their hands and legs, according to Asharam and Ramesh, but, they were unable to run away because the accused persons were armed with deadly weapons. It has been further stated by them that they were beaten by accused persons and they also received injuries. After three days, on account of heavy showers in the night, they got the chance to run away, as a result of which they came out from the grip of these accused persons. The police statement recorded under section 161, CrPC of persons Ex. D-2 and D-3 when confronted to these two witnesses, it has been specifically denied by them that police party did arrive to the Jangal and on seeing the police party accused persons ran away by releasing the abductees. According to us, this is a serious infirmity which has arrived in the statement of these two witnesses. Had there been any truth in regard to the story putforth by the prosecution in Ex. D-2 and D3 that police party came in the Jangal and on seeing the police party the accused persons ran away, definitely these two witnesses would have said in the Court in that regard. This serious infirmity goes to the root of the matter and put a deep dent on the story set up by the prosecution. 13. D-2 and D3 that police party came in the Jangal and on seeing the police party the accused persons ran away, definitely these two witnesses would have said in the Court in that regard. This serious infirmity goes to the root of the matter and put a deep dent on the story set up by the prosecution. 13. Apart from this, according to abductees, they were beaten b appellant and other co-accused persons, but, when they were examine by PW 9 Dr. Anil Jain, no injury was found on the person of the abductees. MLC report of Asharam in Ex. P-6-A while that of Ramesh is Ex. P-7-A. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that abductees were beaten by the accuse persons. 14. Apart from this, if we scan the evidence, particularly para 4 of PW 1 Achchhelal who submitted written report (Ex. P-l) in the police station and on the basis of which FIR (Ex. P-4) was registered, it is gathered that when his son Asharam arrived at home, on the next morning he went to police station to inform that his son has come along with Asharam. At this juncture, at the cost of repetition we will not hesitate to mention that indeed, it is the case of prosecution that police party went to the Jangal to get these persons released and in fact on seeing the police party the accused persons fled. If the story as putforth by prosecution is true then what was the occasion to produce Asharam and Ramesh in the police station when they were released from the grip of accused persons on the efforts being made by the police party. Thus, it raises a heavy doubt about the correctness of the case of prosecution. It is well settled law that suspicion however strong may be, cannot take place of strict proof. 15. Thus, for the reasons stated hereinabove, we have no option except to allow this appeal by setting aside the judgment passed by learned trial Court. 16. Accordingly, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellant is in jail. He be set at with liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.