Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 416 (MP)

Narendra @ Chunna Kirar v. State of M. P.

2016-05-19

N.K.GUPTA, S.A.DHARMADHIKARI

body2016
JUDGMENT 1. All the three appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No.168/2007 [Narendra @ Chunna Kirar and other v. State of M.P.], Criminal Appeal No.266/2007 [Chandu v. State of M.P.], and Criminal Appeal No.430/2007 [Ballu @ Jamunaprasad v. State of M.P.], arise out of one common judgment and therefore they are hereby collectively decided by the present common judgment. 2. The appellants have preferred the present appeals being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.1.2007 passed by the Special Judge (under Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam) and XI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Gwalior (M.P.) in SST No.25/2006 whereby each of the appellants has been convicted of offence under section 396 IPC and section 397 of IPC read with section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam (for brevity “the MPDVPK Act”) and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. No separate conviction or sentence was passed for the offence under section 302 of IPC whereas 10 years’ RI was also recorded for offence under section 397 of IPC. 3. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 6.6.2004 at about 3 p.m., the complainant Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2) was at his shop situated near old bus stand at township of Bhitarwar, District Gwalior. At about 3 p.m., his daughter Ranjana @ Lakshmi (PW1) had telephoned to her friend that some culprits entered in their house and they were committing robbery. Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2) along with his son Manoj Sharma (PW3) immediately rushed to his house and found that the appellants Narendra @ Chunna Kirar, Monu @ Haribabu and Chandu were inside the house of the complainant and they were beating the deceased Shakuntala, wife of the complainant Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2). Thereafter, they gave blows of Baka (Dagger). After hearing the noise of crowd gathered in front of the house of the complainant Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2) all the culprits went to the first floor and thereafter jumped outside the house. However, the appellant Ballu @ Jamuna Prasad who had already come out of the house along with a box was held by the crowd and was handed over to the police. The Sub-Inspector Rajeev Kumar Gupta (PW14) also visited the spot and sent the complainant Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2) to the police station where he had lodged the FIR Ex.P-2. The Sub-Inspector Rajeev Kumar Gupta (PW14) also visited the spot and sent the complainant Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2) to the police station where he had lodged the FIR Ex.P-2. Initially, the case was registered for the offence under sections 393 and 302 of IPC. Sub-Inspector Rajeev Kumar Gupta (PW14) also seized the Katta (hand-made pistol) of 0.315 bore and three live cartridges form the appellant Ballu @ Jamuna Prasad. 4. On the same day evening, on intimation given by some persons, the appellant Narendra @ Chunna Kirar was also arrested and blood stained Baniyan and one rusted dagger were also recovered from him. Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) had informed the investigating officer that initially the culprits robbed her. They robbed a golden chain, golden ear tops and a golden nose ring form her and there were five persons in all involved in the crime and therefore the police registered the offence under section 396 of IPC along with other offences. Thereafter, the appellants Monu @ Haribabu and Chandu were arrested and the robbed property was also recovered from them along with their blood stained clothes and weapons. Dead body of the deceased Shakuntala was sent for post-mortem and Dr. Rameshwar Vimlesh (PW5) after performing post- mortem gave a report Ex.P-6. A huge incised wound was found on the throat of the deceased Shakuntala and due to that injury she had expired. Dr. Rameshwar Vimlesh (PW5) also examined victim Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) and gave his report Ex.P-7. He found five injuries sustained by her which were simple in nature. All the seized properties were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for their examination. The Forensic Science Laboratory in its report Ex.P-23 found blood on all the articles except one full pant of appellant Monu @ Haribabu. Serology report Ex.P-24 was received to the trial Court in which it was found that on the blood recovered from the floor of the spot, Baniyan of the appellant Narendra @ Chunna Kirar and T-shirt of the appellant Chandu, human blood was found and on Baniyan of appellant Narendra @ Chunna Kirar and T-shirt of Chandu human blood of group “A” was found. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge [under MPDVPK Act], Gwalior (M.P.). 5. The appellants abjured their guilt. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge [under MPDVPK Act], Gwalior (M.P.). 5. The appellants abjured their guilt. They did not take any specific plea but they have stated that they were falsely implicated in the matter. 6. The Special Judge after considering the evidence of the prosecution convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 8. In the present case, it is to be primarily considered that whether the death of Shakuntala was homicidal in nature. Dr. Rameshwar Vimlesh (PW5) performed the post mortem on the body of the deceased Shakuntala and gave his report Ex.P-6. According to him, an incised wound measuring 18x4cm x bone deep was found on the throat from right to left up to left mandible bone and all the vital organs below the wound were found to be cut and the injury was sufficient to cause death. According to Dr. Rameshwar Vimlesh (PW5) the death of the deceased Shakuntala was homicidal in nature. No contradictory suggestion was given to Dr. Rameshwar Vimlesh (PW5). Looking to the size of the injury caused to the deceased Shakuntala it could not be caused by herself and even it could not be caused in an accident inside the house and therefore looking to that injury the death of the deceased Shakuntala was homicidal in nature. 9. Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) is a star witness in the case who has stated about the incident that the culprits came from the roof of the house and held her and her mother Shakuntala demanding the ornaments. Her golden chain was snatched and after being terrorized Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) handed over her golden nose pin and ear tops to the culprits. Her story is duly corroborated by the witnesses Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2), Manoj Sharma (PW3), Sanjay Pathak (PW6) and Suresh (PW11) that when they reached the spot they saw that the culprits Monu @ Haribabu, Chandu @ Chandrabhan and Narendra @ Chunna Kirar were beating the deceased Shakuntala and ultimately they cut her neck with a dagger. Ranjana @ Laxmi could save herself in a spur of moment when the culprits were disturbed due to bark of a bitch and she went inside the room and closed the doors of that room. Ranjana @ Laxmi could save herself in a spur of moment when the culprits were disturbed due to bark of a bitch and she went inside the room and closed the doors of that room. Thereafter, she could see the incident from the window of that room. The evidence given by Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) and these witnesses is duly corroborated by the timely lodged FIR Ex.P-2 and post-mortem report Ex.P-6 provided by Dr.Rameshwar Vimlesh (PW5). Also the robbed golden ornament which was found with the appellant Monu @ Haribabu and Chandu @ Chandrabhan and which was duly identified by Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) and Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2) before the Ward Member Shri Laxman (PW9). However, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there are some discrepancies in the statement of witness Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) and therefore she should be disbelieved. According to him, it was not mentioned in the FIR Ex.P-2 that the witness Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) was also robbed and thereafter she went inside the room. It would be apparent from the evidence that Ranjana made a phone call to a neighbouring shop-keeping of her father about the incident and therefore Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2) and his son Manoj Sharma (PW3) could come to the spot. The story of that telephone call was properly mentioned in the FIR, Ex.P-2, and therefore if the witness Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) was not present at the spot and she could not have saved herself by closing the room then she could not make any phone call to the neighbouring shopkeeper of her father. In FIR Ex.P-2 is clearly mentioned that Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) would be the person who shall inform about the articles robbed by the culprits. When the complainant Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma came to the spot, he saw the incident and when he saw that his wife was killed he had no option except to immediately rush to the police station and to lodge an FIR and therefore it appears that without getting any description from Ranjana @ Laxmi, the FIR was lodged and therefore if the story relating to robbery of the victim Ranjana @ Laxmi was not mentioned in the FIR then it makes no difference. 10. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that there is a contradiction between the statements of various witnesses, namely, Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2), Manoj Sharma (PW3), Sanjay Pathak (PW6) and Suresh (PW11) and victim Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1). The witnesses Sanjay Pathak (PW6) and Suresh (PW11) were interested witnesses. However, such submission cannot be accepted in the present case. A lengthy cross-examination was done to the witnesses Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2), Manoj Sharma (PW3), Sanjay Pathak (PW6) and Suresh (PW11) to show the relationship of witnesses Sanjay Pathak (PW6) and Suresh (PW11) with Manoj Sharma (PW3) or Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2) but no relationship could be established. All the four witnesses have stated that the witnesses Sanjay Pathak (PW6) and Suresh (PW11) were not related to them. Hence, the testimony of the independent witnesses should be believed. If witnesses could not reply about such questions like what was the colour of the clothings of the culprits, or whether the witnesses reached the spot after the incident etc. then in such a sensitive incident which took place in the broad daylight, it was not possible for any witness to remember about the clothings of each and every culprit. Similarly, it was not possible for the witnesses to remember another witness as to whether he came earlier or later. Such minor contradictions could have been ignored. Hence, in general, where the presence of Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) was established by the FIR and story narrated by her was duly corroborated by the timely lodged FIR, post-mortem report and recovery of various robbed articles then her testimony cannot be discarded on the whole. The learned counsel for the appellants has also challenged the seizure and identification of various ornaments. In this connection, if the statements of Sub-Inspector Rajeev Kumar Gupta (PW14) and witnesses Prahlad (PW8) and Kashiram (PW13) are considered then no discrepancy could be brought in their statements. Prahlad (PW8) and Kashiram (PW13) were not at all the interested witnesses. They have supported the memo recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act and the consequential recovery from the appellants Monu @ Haribabu and Chandu @ Chandrabhan. Such documents Ex.P-7 to Ex.P-20 were duly proved by these witnesses. Hence, it was established beyond doubt that golden ornaments were recovered from appellant Chandu @ Chandrabhan and Monu @ Haribabu. They have supported the memo recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act and the consequential recovery from the appellants Monu @ Haribabu and Chandu @ Chandrabhan. Such documents Ex.P-7 to Ex.P-20 were duly proved by these witnesses. Hence, it was established beyond doubt that golden ornaments were recovered from appellant Chandu @ Chandrabhan and Monu @ Haribabu. One chain was recovered from Chandu @ Chandrabhan whereas tops and nose pin were recovered from appellant Monu @ Haribabu. 11. Ward member Laxman (PW9), Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) and Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2) have proved the memorandum of identification Ex.P-1 of various ornaments. It could not be established that the complainant and his daughter had an opportunity to see such articles prior to the arrangement of identification. The Ward Member Laxman has properly established that procedure of identification was actually observed by him and identification of articles is believable. Hence, it is proved beyond doubt that robbed ornaments were recovered from the appellants Chandu @ Chandrabhan and Monu @ Haribabu and these were duly identified by Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1). The ward member Laxman (PW9) was cross-examined, in detail, but nothing adverse could be obtained from him. It was suggested to these witnesses that such ornaments are easily available in the open market but used ornaments have a different look than the brand new ornaments, whereas Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) had identified her ornaments because she was wearing them. Hence, such suggestion has no meaning to reject the identification proceedings. Under these circumstances, by recovery and identification, it is established beyond doubt that the appellants Chandu @ Chandrabhan and Monu Haribabu were involved in the robbery and other crimes. 12. Various weapons and clothes were recovered from the appellants by Investigating Officer Rajeev Kumar Gupta (PW14) and these were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. On Baniyan (upper undergarment) of the appellant Narendra @ Chunna Kirar and T-shirt of appellant Chandu @ Chandrabhan, human blood of group “A” was found whereas human blood was found on these two articles as well as the scrap taken from the floor of the spot. On Baniyan (upper undergarment) of the appellant Narendra @ Chunna Kirar and T-shirt of appellant Chandu @ Chandrabhan, human blood of group “A” was found whereas human blood was found on these two articles as well as the scrap taken from the floor of the spot. Since, the blood stains obtained from the spot were less and blood group of that blood could not be identified, it cannot be said that blood group of the deceased was “A”, however, no explanation has been given by the appellant Chandu @ Chandrabhan and Narendra @ Chunna Kiarar as to how their clothes were stained with human blood. Hence, the document Ex.P-23, a report of FSL and the document Ex.P-24 a report of Serology clearly indicates that the appellants Chandu @ Chandrabhan and Narendra @ Chunna Kirar were involved in the crime. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that all the witnesses including Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2) have stated that they saw three culprits inside the house beating the deceased Shakuntala and hence a named FIR was lodged against three such persons and one appellant Ballu @ Jamuna Prasad who was held by the crowd when he came out of the house. The witness Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) has stated that there were five persons involved in the crime. If the fifth one was also involved in the crime then the witness would have seen him at the spot when the appellants were beating the deceased Shakuntala. The FIR was lodged by Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2) who claimed himself to be an eye-witness when the appellants had killed the deceased Shakuntala and he did not see any fifth person at that time. If Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2) and his son had seen the fifth person then it would have been mentioned in the FIR Ex.P-2 that the fifth person was also involved in the crime and if he was not identified then he could have been added as an unknown person. But in the FIR, four persons were named and no unknown person was mentioned who was involved in the crime. But in the FIR, four persons were named and no unknown person was mentioned who was involved in the crime. Under these circumstances, it is possible that after the incident to increase the gravity of the crime and on the advice of the investigating officer, the witness Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) would have improved her version, however, on this count, the testimony of the witness Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) cannot be discarded in toto. In this connection, the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Ugra Ahir v. State of Bihar [ AIR 1965 SC 277 ], may be referred in which it is held that there is no witness who had not stated any falsehood. However, the doctrine of “Falsus in uno Falsus in omnibus” is not applicable in our country. It is the duty of the Court to pick up the grains of truth from the chaff of the falsehood and if it is not possible to do so then the Court is not permitted to create a new story on its own. Under these circumstances, by such material discrepancy between the statements of other witnesses and Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) and evidence of Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) with FIR Ex.P-2, it may be presumed that there was no fifth person who participated in the crime but testimony of Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) cannot be discarded against present four appellants. 14. When five persons were not involved in a crime of robbery then it is not a crime of dacoity. For proof of offence under section 396 of IPC, it is necessary to prove that the crime was done by five persons. When it is not proved then none of the appellants can be convicted of offence under section 396 of IPC, however, they can be convicted of offence under section 394 read with section 397 of IPC. 15. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion where it is established that each of the appellants had participated in the crime of robbery and they robbed the victim Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) as well as the deceased Shakuntala and they were not only armed with deadly weapons but also they used such weapons while committing robbery with victim Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) as well as the deceased Shakuntala. Hence, each of the appellants is liable for committing offence under section 394 read with section 397 of IPC. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellant Ballu @ Jamuna Prasad had already come out of the house and held by the crowd. The witnesses Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2), Manoj Sharma (PW3), Sanjay Pathak (PW6) and Suresh (PW11) have tried to show that they saw the appellant Ballu @ Jamuna Prasad while he was participating in the crime but thereafter in the cross-examination they have accepted that appellant Ballu @ Jamuna Prasad did not come out of the house in their presence. He was already held by the crowd. Hence, it is established that appellant Ballu @ Jamuna Prasad had come out of the house prior to the death of the deceased Shakuntala but according to Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) he had also participated in the crime of robbery and he also gave threat to her. The trial court has already found that at the time of incident the appellant Ballu @ Jamuna Prasad did not have any pistol and therefore appellant Ballu @ Jamuna Prasad was acquitted from the charge of section 25 of the Arms Act but according to Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) he had a dagger obtained from the other culprits hence it cannot be said that he did not have any deadly weapon with him at the time of committing robbery. Under such circumstances, appellant Ballu @ Jamuna Prasad cannot be exonerated from his crime under section 394 read with section 397 of IPC. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that a pair of golden earrings were found on the body of the deceased while the Police has prepared the Panchayatnama Lash, Ex.P-14. However, after perusal of that document it would be apparent that those earrings were not found on the body of the deceased Shakuntala but those were lying on the left side of the dead body. A pair of silver Payal was found on her legs but if the culprits were not interested in silver ornaments and they wanted to get the keys of chest kept in the house then the silver Payal would not have been material for the appellants. A pair of silver Payal was found on her legs but if the culprits were not interested in silver ornaments and they wanted to get the keys of chest kept in the house then the silver Payal would not have been material for the appellants. If they were not interested in any golden earrings then there is no reason as to why the golden earrings were displaced from the ears of the deceased Shakuntala. They were also separated from her body, hence, possibility cannot be ruled out that when the crowed got collected in front of the house of the complainant Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2) and one culprit Ballu @ Jamuna Prasad went out of the house by opening the channel gate and was held by the crowed then the other appellants must have had no option except to run away and while rushing from the spot if they could not take the golden ear-rings of the deceased then it cannot be said that they did not intend to commit robbery. 18. If it is presumed that the appellants did not intend to commit robbery then there was no reason for them to enter into the house of the complainant Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2) and to start beating his wife Shakuntala. No suggestion of enmity was given to the witnesses Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2) or his son Manoj Sharma (PW3) or daughter Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) that there was any enmity of the appellants with the family of the deceased and therefore it was not possible for the appellants to visit inside the house only to kill the deceased Shakuntala. Hence, it is a case of robbery done by the appellants having deadly weapons and also they used the weapons in doing so. Hence, all the appellants are guilty of offence under Section 394 read with section 397 of IPC. In this connection, the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Ram Lakhan v. State of U.P. [ AIR 1983 SC 352 ], may be perused in which it is held that if five persons are not present while committing the crime then they shall be held liable for the offence of robbery and not of dacoity. 19. In this connection, the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Ram Lakhan v. State of U.P. [ AIR 1983 SC 352 ], may be perused in which it is held that if five persons are not present while committing the crime then they shall be held liable for the offence of robbery and not of dacoity. 19. It is true that no offence of section 396 of IPC is constituted against the appellants in the absence of fifth culprit, however, in charges under section 396 of IPC a charge of section 395 and section 302 of IPC are consolidated and therefore if no offence under section 396 of IPC is constituted then the appellants may be convicted of offence under section 302 of IPC under the same charges and therefore the trial Court did not convict the appellants separately for offence under section 302 of IPC. In this connection, the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi v. State of U.P. [ AIR 2011 SC 3114 ], may be perused in which it is held that in charge of section 396 of IPC the culprits can be convicted of offence under section 302 of IPC. If dacoity is not established then still they can be convicted of offence under section 302 of IPC if murder is established. A little portion of para 11 of the aforesaid judgment is hereby reproduced as under : “11. The ingredients of both these offences, to some extent, are also different inasmuch as to complete an offence of ‘dacoity’ under section 396 IPC, five or more persons must conjointly commit the robbery while under section 302 of the IPC even one person by himself can commit the offence of murder. But, as already noticed, to attract the provisions of section 396, the offence of ‘dacoity’ must be coupled with murder. In other words, the ingredients of section 302 become an integral part of the offences punishable under section 396 of the IPC. Resultantly, the distinction with regard to the number of persons involved in the commission of the crime loses its significance as it is possible that the offence of ‘dacoity’ may not be proved but still the offence of murder could be established, like in the present case.” 20. Resultantly, the distinction with regard to the number of persons involved in the commission of the crime loses its significance as it is possible that the offence of ‘dacoity’ may not be proved but still the offence of murder could be established, like in the present case.” 20. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, if the facts of this case are considered then it would be apparent that the appellants Narendra @ Chunna Kirar, Chandu @ Chandrabhan and Monu @ Haribabu were involved in committing the crime of murder. It is true that there was a single injury caused to the victim and it is not very much clear that who caused that injury out of all the three culprits but out of all the appellants appellants Narendra @ Chunna Kirar, Chandu @ Chandrabhan and Monu @ Haribabu were inside the house. Hence, out of three persons one had killed the deceased Shakuntala. It would be apparent from the evidence given by Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) that when the bitch barked during the incident and she went inside the room and closed the doors of that room then the appellants directed each other to give a lesson to the bitch and therefore the bitch was also assaulted by the dagger. Thereafter, each of the appellants assaulted the deceased Shakuntala and ultimately a blow of dagger was given on her throat and she was killed. Under these circumstances, all the appellants who were present inside the house were interested to kill the deceased Shakuntala because she did not intimate them about the precious property of Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2) within time and crowd had gathered. Hence, all of the appellants including Narendra @ Chunna Kirar, Chandu @ Chandrabhan and Monu @ Haribabu had intended to kill the deceased Shakuntala and therefore having a common intention each of them is liable for offence under section 302 of IPC with the help of section 34 of IPC. It is apparent that when the witnesses Ramgopal @ Gopal Prasad Sharma (PW2) etc came to the spot they saw that the appellants were beating the deceased Shakuntala but appellant Ballu @ Jamuna Prasad already came out of the house and was held by the crowd and therefore his absence at the spot when the deceased Shakuntala was killed creates a doubt as to whether he intended to kill the deceased or not. Hence, appellant Ballu @ Jamuna Prasad cannot be convicted under section 302 of IPC either directly or with the help of section 34 of IPC. 21. So far as the sentence part is concerned, the trial Court has recorded a sentence of life imprisonment for the offence under section 396 of IPC which would be the minimum sentence for the offence under section 302 of IPC and therefore there would not be any requirement to reduce that sentence. When a person has to undergo for a life imprisonment then there is no need to record a harsh sentence for remaining offence of dacoity. For offence under section 397 of IPC minimum sentence is prescribed hence looking to the robbery done with the victim Ranjana @ Laxmi (PW1) and the deceased Shakuntala it would be proper to reduce the sentence of offence under section 397 of IPC to its minimum limit. 22. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants is hereby partly allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court for the offence under section 396 of IPC read with section 13 of the MPDVPK Act is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted form the charge of section 396 of IPC. However, under the charge of section 396 of IPC, appellants Narendra @ Chunna Kirar, Monu @ Haribabu and Chandu @ Chandrabhan are convicted of offence under section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In lieu of payment of fine, each of them shall undergo for six months’ RI. In the charge of section 396 read with section 397 of IPC along with section 13 of the MPDVPK Act, each of the appellants is convicte[iSjk 22d of offence under section 394 read with section 397 of IPC and under section 13 of the MPDVPK Act and sentenced to seven years’ RI. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 23. All the appellants are in custody and therefore the Principal Registrar of Gwalior Bench is directed to arrange for issuance of Super Session warrant accordingly.