Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 40 (MP)

Hariballabh K. Rawat v. State of M. P.

2010-01-12

S.S.DWIVEDI

body2010
Judgment ( 1. ) The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr. P.C. aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10th April, 2007 passed by the Special Judge (M.P.D.V.P.K. Act) Shivpuri in Special Sessions Trial No. 84/06 whereby held the appellant/accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC and also under Section 394/34 read with Section 397 of IPC and sentenced to seven years R. I. with a fine of Rs. 1000/- on each count. All these sentences are directed to run concurrently. ( 2. ) Brief facts of the case are on 28-7-2006, the complainant Charanjeet Singh, while returning from his field on the motor-cycle No. MP33/B3811 at that time nearby Kunwarpura Road, the appellant/accused together with three accused persons came there and stopped the complainant. The appellant accused started firing on the complainant by means of a country made pistol and, thereafter co-accused had looted the currency note of Rs. 20,000/-, one Nokia mobile and one golden ring from the possession of the complainant Charanjeet Singh and also forcibly taken away the motor cycle belonging to the complainant. The matter has been reported to the Police Station Sirsor, on which basis, police had registered a case under Sections 307, 394 of IPC. Send the injured/complainant for medical examination. During investigation, looted property had been seized from the possession of the appellant Harivallabh and other articles from the co- accused Maniram and after due investigation charge-sheet has been filed. ( 3. ) The appellant/accused abjured the guilt and his defence is of false implication. The learned trial Court after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record acquitted the co-accused Maniram from the aforesaid charges but held the appellant/accused Harivallabh guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 394 read within Section 397 of the IPC. Aggrieved by which, the appellant has preferred this appeal. ( 4. ) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record. ( 5. ) It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that in the initial FIR, there is no allegation against the appellant for the alleged commission of the offence of robbery. The main allegation for the commission of robbery is against the co-accused Maniram, who has been acquitted by the trial Court. ( 5. ) It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that in the initial FIR, there is no allegation against the appellant for the alleged commission of the offence of robbery. The main allegation for the commission of robbery is against the co-accused Maniram, who has been acquitted by the trial Court. In such circumstances, the learned trial Court has wrongly held the appellant/accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 397 of the IPC. Similarly no injury sustained to the complainant for the alleged fire arm. In such circumstances, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC is also erroneous, therefore, prayed for setting aside of the impugned order of conviction and sentence in the alternative prayed for just reduction of the jail sentence. ( 6. ) In reply, learned Public Prosecutor for the State supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. ( 7. ) To bring home the charge as levelled against the appellant the prosecution had examined the complainant Charanjeet Singh (PW2), who clearly stated that when he was returning from police station after lodging some report, at that time, near Kajaria bus stand, the appellant/accused Harivallabh together with the accused Udal, Halke, Maniram came there. Harivallabh started firing by a country-made pistol and due to fire he fell down from the motor-cycle. Thereafter, the accused Harivallabh put the country- made pistol on his ear and asked to give all the currency note which was in his possession and thereafter forcibly taken away the currency note of Rs. 20,000/-, one Nokia mobile and one golden ring from the possession of his brother and, thereafter he also forcibly taken away the boxer motor-cycle belonging to him and ran away from the spot. He lodged the FIR at Police Station, Sirsor, which is Ex. P-4. As the complainant has not stated any thing against the co-accused Maniram in his examination, therefore, he had been declared hostile by the prosecution. On short point with regard to Maniram in cross-examination he had further denied that he had also named the co-accused Maniram but with regard to the involvement of the accused appellant Harivallabh, he has specifically stated that he tried to cause injuries by way of country-made pistol to him and also taken away the currency note of Rs. 20,000. one Nokia mobile and the boxer motor-cycle from his possession. 20,000. one Nokia mobile and the boxer motor-cycle from his possession. The aforesaid statement of the complainant got further support by the statement of Sikandar Singh (PW3), who has also present on the spot, who also narrated the same facts that it is the appellant/accused Harivallabh who started firing by country-made pistol and also forcibly taken away the currency note of Rs. 20,000/-, one Nokia mobile and one golden ring. This witness also identified by the appellant/accused as the person who committed robbery. This witness is also declared hostile on the point that he had not named Maniram in this incident. ( 8. ) The seizure of the looted property, the motor-cycle is proved from the possession of the accused Harivallabh. For this, the prosecution had examined the Investigating Officer. Narendra Singh (PW8), who on the information given by the accused Harivallabh under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the seized motor-cycle from the field belonging to the appellant Harivallabh which is boxer motor-cycle having registration No. MP33/ B3811. The statement of Panch witnesses Jasveer Singh (P.W7) who also proved the concerned motor-cycle, the looted property had been seized from the possession of Harivallabh as per his information and for this, appellant/accused could not give any satisfactory explanation with regard to the possession of the aforesaid motor-cycle which is a looted property. ( 9. ) Much stress has been given by the counsel for the appellant that the complainant Charanjeet Singh has willfully not named the co-accused Maniram in this incident, instead of the fact that his name has been mentioned in the FIR. Therefore, the statement of complainant is not found to be believable and the trial Court had wrongly believed the statement of the complainant. It is true that the complainant not named the co-accused Maniram but by the aforesad version, the entire statement of the complainant cannot be thrown out. It is a settled principle of law that the principles of "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" is not applicable in India. Meaning thereby the witnesses cannot be branded liars in toto and their testimony cannot be rejected outright even if parts of their statements are demonstrably incorrect or doubtful. It is a settled principle of law that the principles of "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" is not applicable in India. Meaning thereby the witnesses cannot be branded liars in toto and their testimony cannot be rejected outright even if parts of their statements are demonstrably incorrect or doubtful. For the aforesaid proposition, the reliance can be placed on the decision of the Apex Court reported in Milikiyat Singh v. State, ( AIR 1981 SC 1579 ) : (1981 Cri LJ 1000) and State v. Shankar ( AIR 1981 SC 897 ) : (1981 Cri LJ 23) wherein it is held that the aforesaid principle of "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" is not applicable in India, the Court is duty bound to separate the grain from the chaff instead of rejecting outright named statement of the witnesses. ( 10. ) In view of the aforesaid principle laid down by the Apex Court, on perusal of the statement of the complainant Charanjeet Singh, though he had not stated anything against the co-accused Maniram but by his statement for the involvement of the appellant/accused Harivallabh is found to be proved that he is the person who armed with a country-made pistol tried to cause injury to the complainant and also commit robbery by forcibly taken away the motor-cycle belonging to him. Moreover, the prosecution as discussed herein above also proved the seizure of the looted property, the motorcycle from the possession of the appellant/accused and in such circumstances offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and 394 read with 397 of the IPC is fully proved by the prosecution against the appellant Harivallabh. ( 11. ) Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid appreciation of evidence, the finding of the conviction recorded by the trial Court is hereby affirmed. ( 12. ) With regard to the sentence is concerned for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC, it is proved that at the time of commission of robbery, the appellant/accused tried to cause grievous injury to the complainant by means of the country-made pistol. In such circumstances, for the offence of robbery, the minimum sentence provided with the aid of Section 397 of IPC is of seven years and no grounds are available for any reduction of the aforesaid sentence. ( 13. In such circumstances, for the offence of robbery, the minimum sentence provided with the aid of Section 397 of IPC is of seven years and no grounds are available for any reduction of the aforesaid sentence. ( 13. ) Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the appellant being devoid of any substance is dismissed accordingly and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is hereby affirmed. Appeal dismissed.