Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 355 (MP)

Mukesh v. State of M. P.

2012-03-28

S.R.WAGHMARE

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been filed under section 374 of the Cr.P.C. by 6 accused appellants being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow in Sessions Trial No.316/2002 on 26.06.2003 and they are convicted and sentenced as under: Name of Penal Section Sentence appellant Appellant 225 IPC To undergo 1 year R.I. and to pay no.1 fine of Rs.1,000/- and in Mukesh default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 3 months. 294 IPC To undergo 1 month R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 15 days. Appellant 341 IPC To undergo 1 month S.I. and to no.1 pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default Mukesh of payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for 10 days. 25(1-B)(b) of To undergo 1 year R.I. and to pay a the Arms Act fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 3 months. Appellant 224 IPC To undergo 1 year R.I. and to pay a No.2 fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of Rakesh payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 3 months. 225 IPC To undergo 1 year R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 3 months. 294 IPC To undergo 1 month R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 15 days. 341 IPC To undergo 1 month S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for 10 days. 25(1-B)(b) of To undergo 1 year R.I. and to pay a the Arms Act fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 3 months. 332 IPC To undergo 2 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 6 months. Appellant 353 IPC To undergo 1-1 year R.I. to each and No.3 to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and Vijay, in default of payment of fine to Appellant undergo further R.I. for 3-3 months No.4 Jitendra, each. Appellant 353 IPC To undergo 1-1 year R.I. to each and No.3 to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and Vijay, in default of payment of fine to Appellant undergo further R.I. for 3-3 months No.4 Jitendra, each. Appellant 294 IPC To undergo 1 month R.I. each and No.5 to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each and in Ranjit & default of payment of fine to undergo Appellant further R.I. for 15 days each. No.6 224 IPC To undergo 1 year R.I. to each and Vijay to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 3 months each. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 22.01.2002 at 10.30 p.m. in the night the custom Sub-Inspector Deepsingh Rathore received an information that Rakesh alias Don and his companions were concealing illicit liquor in the culvert at Gujarkheda, Mhow amongst the bushes. On receiving the said information the Sub-Inspector J.K. Pathak, Constable Kanhaiyalal, Subhashchandra, Babulal, Harikishan and witnesses Munnalal and Ramkeshisingh by jeep bearing registration No.M.P.09-H.C.4193 left for Gujarkheda Muktidham and when they reached the culvert near the bushes, they saw through light of the headlights of the jeep, that Mukesh alias Don, Vijay s/o. Munnalal, Jitendra, Vijay s/o. Champalal; were hiding the English liquor (foreign liquor) and they were apprehended at the spot with 32 cartons of foreign liquor, and old custail rum bottles amounting to total of 1536 quarters. However, on being confronted they attacked these public officers in the course of their duties with lethal weapons and tried to commit the murder of Sub-Inspector Deep Singh Rathore and Ramkesh. They also hurled abuses of mother and sister and hence after being apprehended from the spot; offences under sections 224, 307, 225, 332, 294, 341 of the IPC and 25 (1-B)(b) of the Arms Act also against the accused Vijay s/o. Champalal, Vijay s/o. Munnalal, Jitendra and Ranjit offences under sections 224, 353 and 294 of the IPC were recorded against them. Thereafter the investigation was launched. The procedure was duly completed after their arrest. The accused were committed to their trial. 3. The accused abjured their guilt and stated that they were falsely implicated in the matter. The trial Court on considering the evidence, however convicted and sentenced the accused as herein above indicated. Being aggrieved the appellants have filed the present appeal. 4. The procedure was duly completed after their arrest. The accused were committed to their trial. 3. The accused abjured their guilt and stated that they were falsely implicated in the matter. The trial Court on considering the evidence, however convicted and sentenced the accused as herein above indicated. Being aggrieved the appellants have filed the present appeal. 4. Counsel for the appellants has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication. The Trial Court had already exonerated all the appellants from offence under section 307 of the IPC. There were material omissions and contradictions in the statements of material witnesses. Moreover Counsel urged that the independent witnesses Munna P.W.12, Anshuman Krishnan P.W.13 and the witnesses of seizure have not supported the prosecution case and therefore the seizure memo Ex.P/11 and the arrest memo Ex.P/12 are contrary to the provisions of law and ought to have been disregarded and Counsel prayed that the impugned conviction be set aside. In the alternate Counsel prayed that keeping in mind the application under section 427 of the Cr.P.C. this Court be pleased to direct that the sentence shall run concurrently since the accused is now facing the prosecution since 2003 and the incident is of the year 2002. 5. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions and fully supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that although the witnesses of seizure have not supported the prosecution case and they have admitted to putting their signatures on the seizure memo as well as the arrest memo. Moreover no malafides have been impugned against P.W.12 Munna and the Sub-Inspector Deep Singh Rathore P.W.3. So also the testimony of inspector D.K. Tiwari P.W.11 and Sub-Inspector D.P. Yadav P.W.10 have fully substantiated the prosecution case and there is no need to doubt the implication of the present appellants. Moreover they caused injuries with lethal weapons like sword to the police officers in the course of their duties and the medical evidence on record clearly establishes the fact that both the appellants persons have caused grievous injuries and under these circumstances Counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. On considering the above submissions, the materials on record and the evidence, I find that the appeal is without substance. The judgment is based on valid and cogent reasons and there has been proper marshalling of evidence. 6. On considering the above submissions, the materials on record and the evidence, I find that the appeal is without substance. The judgment is based on valid and cogent reasons and there has been proper marshalling of evidence. No fault can be found with the judgment of the conviction. However regarding the sentence, I find that under the circumstances it is unduly harsh to make the sentences run consecutively especially since the appellants are on bail and it is now more than eleven years since the date of the incident. Therefore although I uphold the conviction of the accused for offence under sections 224, 225, 294, 341, 332, 353 of the IPC and 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act; I find that the alternate prayer of the Counsel for the appellants is reasonable under the circumstances and it is directed that the sentence of all the accused appellants shall run concurrently and not consecutively. 7. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled. However, the accused/appellants are directed to surrender on or before 10th April, 2012 before the trial Court to undergo the remaining part of the jail sentence as directed by the trial Court. The appeal is thus partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated. 8. A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court for compliance.