Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 851 (MP)

Krapalsingh s/o Gopalsingh v. State Of M. P.

2016-09-21

ALOK VERMA

body2016
ORDER : This Criminal Revision under section 397 read with section 401, Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Agar, District-Agar in Sessions Trial No. 135/2016 dated 28-7-2016, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 397, 302, Indian Penal Code and in alternate section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Relevant facts as emerge from the prosecution story in brief are that the report was lodged by complainant Ramsingh in Police Station Agar on 15-4-2016 stating therein that his parental uncle was working as Security Guard in ‘Innerkon Pawan Urja Company’. He did not reach on duty on that day and he got intimation on 7:30 p.m. Thereafter, complainant with his younger brother went in search for him. They found deceased Gopisingh under injured condition near Guaodi Karadiya. He was not speaking and there were injuries on his head and both legs. Some unknown miscreants looted 12 bore rifle as well as his mobile phone of Nokia Company, therefore, report was lodged in Crime No. 184/2016 under section 394 of Indian Penal Code. During treatment of deceased Gopisingh succumbed injuries and, therefore, sections 397, 120-B, 411, 302, Indian Penal Code and section 25 of Arms Act were added. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no direct evidence available against the present applicant. The present applicant, who is nephew of the deceased was working as Security Guard in the same company where the deceased was also working. Therefore, the present applicant has implicated in the case on basis of disclosure memo given by main accused Dilip Singh, who stated in the disclosure memo that on the date of incident, the present applicant met him and showed him the way from which the deceased would come. Thereafter, he left. They waited for the deceased and inflicted various injuries on the deceased by lathi and snatched 12 bore rifle and Nokia mobile phone. No recovery is made from the present applicant and, therefore, he could not be implicated merely on the basis of fact stated in the disclosure memo of co-accused which are not admissible in evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the State submit that according to prosecution witness Yashwant Parmar, the present applicant was working as Security Guard in the said company where he committed theft and due to which he was removed from the job. 4. Learned counsel for the State submit that according to prosecution witness Yashwant Parmar, the present applicant was working as Security Guard in the said company where he committed theft and due to which he was removed from the job. The deceased Gopisingh considered to be an honest person and he was retained by company. Witness Peerulal, who was a closed friend of present applicant, gave statement that the present applicant told him that when he asked the present applicant why he left job in the company, the present applicant told him that deceased Gopisingh complainted against him to the Officers of the company and got him removed from the job. He nurtured grudge against his uncle Gopisingh. He told the witness that he would see to it that the deceased who caused loss to him by getting him removed from the job, would be properly. 5. I have gone through the entire copies of the charge-sheet. The only evidence against the present applicant is that he was nurturing grudge against the deceased and this fact stated by some of the prosecution witness. However, even if it is presumed that he was not happy with deceased, the same evidence to connect him with the offence, except disclosure memo by co-accused Dilip Singh, no other evidence is available. That portion of disclosure memo given by Dilip Singh is admissible and, therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, no charges are made out against the applicant. 6. In this view of the matter, this revision deserves to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, revision is allowed. The order passed by learned Additional Session Judge, dated 28-7-2016 framed under aforesaid charges against the present applicant is set aside. The applicant is discharged from the offences under sections 394 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and in alternate section 302/34, 120-B of Indian Penal Code. With the observation the aforesaid Criminal Revision stands disposed of.