Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 355 (MP)

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. VEERU SINGH

2010-03-25

PIYUSH MATHUR

body2010
JUDGMENT This Appeal against acquittal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, on being aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal passed by Special Judge, Morena in Special Case No. 03/2001 on date 22-4-2002, whereby Respondent Veeru alias Veer Singh, Budh Singh and Bhagirath have been acquitted from the charges framed against them under Section 216-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 11, 13 Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Evam Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam as also under Section 25(1B)(a) and Section 30 of the Arms Act. The Prosecution has demonstrated during trial that upon receiving intimation on D/- 28-8-2000, about the movement of the dacoits in the ravines (with live cartridges, Rifle and large cash amount) an ambush was set up for apprehending them by the Station House Officer of Police Station Dimni. The prosecution has further demonstrated that a known Dacoit Ramesh Kushwaha, against whom prices money was also declared, was moving in the territories of Kwaari River Ravines, where Veer Singh s/o. Bhagirath Singh was found to be in possession of arm and ammunition, for supplying the same to the declared Dacoit Ramesh Kushwaha. The prosecution has examined as many as 10 prosecution witnesses to establish the charges against the Respondent but all the independent witnesses, PW - 1 Ramnath, PW - 2 Parsa and PW - 3 Prakash had turned hostile, although the other prosecution witnesses, who are Police Constables, Arms Clerk, Head constables, ASI and Station House Officer have all deposed in favour of the Prosecution story. Upon completion of the investigation a charge sheet was submitted against three accused persons, namely, Veeru alias Veer Singh S/o Bhagirath Singh, Budh Singh S/o Bhagirath Singh and Bhagirath Singh S/o Khare Singh Tomar and charges were framed under Sections 216-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 of Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Evam Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam and under Section 25(1B)(a) and Section 30 of the Arms Act and after recording the Prosecution Evidence and conducting Trial the Special Judge, Morena has found that the Prosecution has failed to establish all the charges, framed against the Accused/Respondents and has ultimately acquitted the Respondents from all the charges, by its judgment dated 22-4-2002. The State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred the present Appeal against acquittal of the Respondents and this Court had been pleased to grant Leave to Appeal only in relation to Respondent Veeru and his father Bhagirath Singh vide order dated 28th September, 2002. The record further reveals that Respondent Bhagirath Singh Tomar has expired on date 19-3-2009, whereafter his name was deleted from the Cause Title and as such the present Appeal relates only to Respondent Veeru alias Veer Singh S/o Bhagirath Singh. I have heard Shri B. D. Mahore, Deputy Govt. Advocate appearing for the Appellant/State of M.P. and Shri Mukesh Sharma, Learned Counsel for Respondent and have perused the record of the case. The statements of the prosecution witnesses, namely, Shivraj Singh PW - 5, Ramanand Sharma PW - 7, Kuber Singh Yadav PW - 8 and Maheshchandra Sharma PW - 10 broadly demonstrate that soon upon receiving an intimation about the movement of a Dacoit Ramesh Kushwaha, the S.D.O. (Police) Mr. Manoj Rai had formed an ambush party, for apprehending, Dacoits near Village Viruhrua, which is situated on the banks of Kwaari River, when at about 1:30 p.m. in the afternoon one person, who was later identified as Veeru, appeared on the scene, along with a Rifle and live cartridges and when his search was conducted, he was found carrying Rs. 33,000/- along with him. The prosecution witnesses have revealed in their testimony that Veeru was not carrying 'gun license' along with him and he was not in a position to explain as to how he was carrying a large amount of Rs. 33,000/- in the ravines. P.W. 5 Shivraj Singh and P.W. - 8 Kuber Singh are the two Head Constables who had accompanied the S.D.O. (P) who had disclosed in their statements that S.D.O. (Police) Manoj Rai had made the preliminary interrogation of Respondent Veeru and had also taken the Shotgun, Ten Live Cartridges and Rs. 33,000/- from the possession of Respondent Veeru and it is quite surprising that Prosecution has not examined S.D.O. (P) Mr. Manoj Rai as Prosecution witnesses even when several independent acts have been attributed to him by all the Prosecution Witnesses, right from the stage of receiving the information, till the preparation of Arrest Memo of Respondent Veeru. 33,000/- from the possession of Respondent Veeru and it is quite surprising that Prosecution has not examined S.D.O. (P) Mr. Manoj Rai as Prosecution witnesses even when several independent acts have been attributed to him by all the Prosecution Witnesses, right from the stage of receiving the information, till the preparation of Arrest Memo of Respondent Veeru. A close scrutiny of the Statements of P.W. - 5 Shivraj Singh and P.W. - 8 Kuber Singh Yadav further reveals that there exists material contradiction in the testimony of these two witnesses in relation to the fact of the arrest of Respondent Veeru and other independent acts of receiving information, establishing the ambush and the presence of the Police party and distance of the house of Respondent from the banks of River, which creates sufficient doubt about the veracity of even these witnesses, who had not turned hostile and the Trial Court seems to have correctly analyzed the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, when it reaches a conclusion that the testimony of the witnesses is contradictory to each other and suffers from material inconsistency. The movement action of the Police Party from the Police Station and its return to the Police Station requires mention in the Roznamcha, in view of the procedure prescribed in the Police Regulations but when the statements of P.W. - 5 Shivraj Singh and P.W. 8 Kuber Singh are examined, it emerges on the record that in spite of disclosing the fact of making of the entries in Roznamcha, no such document or its extract was produced by the Prosecution for proving the correctness of the fact of receiving the information, forming of an ambush party and the other evidence leading to arrest of accused and return of the party along with the seized articles (Shotgun, Live Cartridges and Cash Amount). This also has been correctly found by the Trial Court to be completely untrustworthy, for the simple reason that when the Head Constable had deposed about the fact of recording details of all the events in the Roznamcha, the Prosecution was having documentary record to establish the timings of receiving information as also the details of the information, for connecting the present Respondent with the Offence, more so when the ambush was not established for apprehending Veeru, but it was established for a known Dacoit Ramesh Kushwaha. The defence had examined D.W. - 1 Jagdish, who states in his testimony that Respondent Veeru and Bhagirath are the son and father and the Shotgun, allegedly recovered from the possession of Veeru was in fact belong to his father Bhagirath Singh and was recovered while making raid/search of the House of Bhagirath and by breaking open the Almirah and the Shotgun, Ten Live Cartridges and Cash Amount of Rs. 33,000/- were all taken out from the Almirah, by Police. The Defence has also established that a valid Arms License was issued by the Licensing Authority in the name of the father and was valid till 31st December, 2000, whereas the weapon was seized on Date 28th, August 2000 from the possession of Veeru, which means that the License of the Gun was subsisting at the time when it was seized from the possession of the Respondent. Therefore, the Trial Court has correctly analyzed the issue regarding the validity and existence of the Arms License, while acquitting the Respondents from the charges levelled against them, under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 30 of the Arms Act. Similarly, the Prosecution has further failed to establish the charges framed against the Respondents under Section 13 of Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Evam Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, upon having no material to connect the guilt with the accused and by not collecting the material elements required for sustaining charges under these provisions of the Adhiniyam. Therefore I find no scope of interfering with the Judgment of acquittal passed by the Special Judge, whereby the Respondents have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them under Section 216-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Evam Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam and Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act. Consequently the Appeal preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the acquittal of the Respondents fails and is hereby dismissed. The Bail Bonds of the Respondents, obtained for the present Appeal, are hereby discharged. Appeal dismissed.