Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 962 (MP)

Mohan Singh v. State of M. P.

2016-10-25

D.K.PALIWAL

body2016
ORDER 1. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have served the sentence awarded to them. He does not wish to press this appeal on the question of conviction. As regards sentence, he submits that the appellants have served out the sentence awarded to them. 2. Heard. 3. This appeal has been filed under section 374 of CrPC being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Special Judge MPDVPK Act in Special Sessions Trial No.61 of 2009 on 28.4.2010 whereby, the appellants have been convicted under section 307 of IPC read with section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and sentenced to undergo seven years RI with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 2.3.2009 SHO Shivpuri on the direction of Superintendent of Police has gone for searching in jungle along with police force. Superintendent of Police directed him to reach Police Station Gopalpura. When complainant reached there, SP informed that some persons have been abducted by dacoits and dacoits are present in the Jamunia jungle. He was asked to apprehend the dacoits. He along with the police force reached Jamunia village and when they were searching at about 6 p.m., four dacoits were seen along with two persons. The dacoits were asked to surrender but they started firing at police force. When they did not stop, police also started firing in their defence and one bullet hit a dacoit who fell down. The other started running and they were also firing on the police party and flew away. Thereafter, police party reached Aam kho where one dacoit was found dead and two abductees were found. They disclosed their names as Suresh and Mangi and dacoit who died was Hari Singh. They also disclosed the names of dacoits to be Mohan Singh, Atar Singh and Banphool alias Phool Singh who fired on police force. The FIR was registered. During investigation, the accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Learned trial Court framed charges under section 307 of IPC read with section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and explained to the accused who abjured their guilt. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in support of their case while in defence, none has been examined. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Learned trial Court framed charges under section 307 of IPC read with section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and explained to the accused who abjured their guilt. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in support of their case while in defence, none has been examined. After scanning evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants as stated herein above in para 1 of the judgment. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been preferred. 5. During course of arguments, learned counsel on behalf of the appellants has not challenged the conviction. He submitted that the appellants have served the sentence imposed on them. Hence, prayed that they be directed to be released. 6. Learned Government Advocate on the other hand has supported the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Ratnesh Singh Tomar (PW7) has stated that he has gone along with Headconstable Masih Khan, Headconstable Brijmohan, Constable Gulshan and Constable Aslam and independent witnesses Pravin and Bhupendra in the jungle and when they were searching, four dacoits were seen having armed along with two persons. He called the dacoits to surrender but they started firing on police party. Again, they were warned to surrender but they continued to fire. Police party fired in their defence. The dacoits started running away. They were also firing. One dacoit was found lying dead. One rifle and empty cartridges were lying on the spot. Two persons were also found who were tied with towels. They disclosed the name of dacoit who died as Hari Singh and others as Mohan Singh, Atar Singh and Banphool alias Phoolsingh, who flew away. Aforesaid statement of Ratnesh Singh Tomar (PW7) is corroborated by Brijmohan (PW1) and R.D.Mishra (PW2). Mangilal (PW3) and Suresh (PW4) are the independent witnesses. According to them, they went to jungle for cutting the wood. Suresh, Atar Singh, Halke and Kailash were accompanied them. When they were cutting the wood, some dacoits met them. They caught hold of them and demanded ransom of Rs. One lac. Ultimately, they agreed at Rs.30,000/-. They kidnapped Suresh and Halke. Next day, when mangiral and others went to give Rs.30,000/-, they started demanding Rs.60,000/-. They released Halke but restrained him and Mangilal. When they were cutting the wood, some dacoits met them. They caught hold of them and demanded ransom of Rs. One lac. Ultimately, they agreed at Rs.30,000/-. They kidnapped Suresh and Halke. Next day, when mangiral and others went to give Rs.30,000/-, they started demanding Rs.60,000/-. They released Halke but restrained him and Mangilal. He further stated that when dacoits were going to have bath, police came there. They started firing at police party. Three dacoits flew away and one of them got injured. 9. All the witnesses have been cross-examined at length. Nothing has been come out in their cross-examination to disbelieve their statements. The testimony of police personnels Ratnesh Tomar (PW7) Brijmohan (PW1) and R.D.Mishra (PW2) are fully corroborated by injured witnesses. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony. 10. Considering the evidence available on record, I find that learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and material on record. The prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges against the appellant. The finding as recorded by learned trial Court is well merited and no ground to interfere with the conviction recorded by learned trial Court. 11. Consequently, this appeal with regard to the conviction deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the conviction of the appellants/accused under section 307 of IPC read with section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act is hereby affirmed. 12. As regards sentence, the learned trial Court has imposed sentence of seven years RI and fine of Rs.1000/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court appears to be just and proper and does not require any interference by this Court. 13. In view of the above, this appeal has no merit, hence, it is dismissed. Conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is hereby affirmed. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were in jail from 6.5.2009 to 28.4.2010 during trial and thereafter since 28.4.2010 and till today, they are serving the sentence. 15. Considering these submissions, it is directed that if the appellants have served out the sentence as imposed by the trial Court, then, they be released forthwith if they are not required in any other case. 16. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. V. K. Agrawal for appellants; A. S. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.