Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 331 (MP)

Sachin Namdeo v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2021-03-09

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, VIRENDER SINGH

body2021
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 04.04.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kotma Anuppur (M.P.) in ST. No. 61/2010, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under with the direction that the custodial sentences shall run concurrently- Convicted under Section Sentenced to 302 read with 34 of the IPC life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for 3 months. 364A read with 34 of the IPC life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for 3 months. 365 read with 34 of the IPC undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for 3 months. 342 read with 34 of the IPC undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for 3 months. 201 read with 34 of the IPC undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for 3 months. 2. In this case, the allegations were made against 2 persons namely Rahul @ Chhotu and Sachin @ Ilu (appellant). Since Rahul was a child in conflict with the law, the charge sheet against him was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board. 3. The prosecution case may be narrated thus: (i) Gurucharan Singh, his wife Kanchan (PW 2) and sons Gajendrabhan aged 13 years and Annu @ Indrabhan aged 10 years (since deceased) were living at Gate Dafai, Bhalumada whereas daughters of his elder brother late Anant Pratap Singh; Lalita (PW 1) and Savita (PW 5) were living at Vikas Nagar, Kotma. Annu alias Indrabhan used to come to their house in Vikas Nagar, Kotma. Maldhari Sharma and Vishnu Namdeo were their neighbours. All families were in good relations. Child in conflict with law Rahul is the son of Maldhari and appellant Ilu @ Sachin is the son of Vishnu Namdeo. They both were enjoying friendly relations with the deceased. (ii) It is alleged that on 10.04.2010, Rahul and Sachin hatched a conspiracy to extract money by abducting the deceased. All families were in good relations. Child in conflict with law Rahul is the son of Maldhari and appellant Ilu @ Sachin is the son of Vishnu Namdeo. They both were enjoying friendly relations with the deceased. (ii) It is alleged that on 10.04.2010, Rahul and Sachin hatched a conspiracy to extract money by abducting the deceased. In furtherance of their plan, on 12.04.2010, when the deceased came to visit the house of his cousins Lalita and Savita, they approached him at 1:30 pm and offered to play chess with them and started playing there. At 3:30 pm, they asked him to continue the game at the house of Rahul and took him with them. At Rahul's house, they asked Annu to stay there for 7-8 days stating that after receiving money of Rs. 20 lacs, they will release him. Rahul prepared a letter of demand for a ransom of rupees 20 lacs and also wrote another letter of demand of Rs. one lac. But Annu was not ready to stay with them and tried to go out of the room. He started making a clamour. The appellant locked the doors from inside and co-accused Rahul tied his mouth with a piece of Sari. Still, Annu tried to run away, then the appellant caught hold of his legs and co-accused Rahul tied a rope around his neck, as a result of which, Annu succumbed to death. Thereafter both the accused wrapped his dead body in a white cloth and concealed it in the lower shelf of the Almirah kept in the room, locked the doors from outside, the appellant buried the letter of demand of ransom in the courtyard of Rahul and left the place. (iii) At about 5:30 pm, Lalita (PW 1) came to the house of Rahul and asked about the deceased. Rahul informed that he had gone with the appellant. She didn't take it seriously and asked Rahul to accompany her to the market and went with him to buy vegetables. When she came back home, her sister Savita informed her that the deceased had not come yet. Worried about him, both Lalita and Savita went to the house of Rahul and asked his grandmother Radha Devi about the deceased. In search of the deceased, they all went to the room of Rahul. The room was locked. Radha Devi asked about the keys. Worried about him, both Lalita and Savita went to the house of Rahul and asked his grandmother Radha Devi about the deceased. In search of the deceased, they all went to the room of Rahul. The room was locked. Radha Devi asked about the keys. Rahul replied that the same are missing. Then she broke the lock, entered into the room and shocked to see the body of the deceased kept in the almirah with hands and legs tied up with a rope, mouth stuffed with a piece of Gamcha (scarf) and a piece of Sari wrapped around the neck. They immediately took out the body. Neighbours Ashish and Deepak Namdeo rushed to the hospital with the body on their motorcycle, but the Doctor declared him brought dead. (iv) Lalita (PW 1) immediately intimated the police at 9:05 pm. The police registered Merg No. 24/10 Ex. P/1 and FIR No. 56/10 Ex. P/2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC against both Rahul and Sachin (appellant), called the witnesses Ex. P/4, prepared memo of corps Ex. P/5 and spot map Ex. P/3, seized articles from the spot used in the alleged crime Ex. P/18, sent the dead body for post-mortem at Community Health Centre, Kotma, Dr O.P. Choudhary (PW 4) conducted the post-mortem and opined that the death was due to strangulation Ex. P/6. The I.O.R. Patel (PW 14) recorded statements of the witnesses namely Lalita Singh (PW 1), Kanchan Singh (PW 2), Balak Singh (PW 3), Savita Singh (PW 5), Radha Devi (PW 6) and others, arrested the appellant on 13.04.2010 vide Arrest Memo Ex. P/11, recorded his memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and based on the information given by him, recovered a letter of ransom from Badi (courtyard) of the house of co-accused Rahul and obtained specimen handwriting of Rahul. (v) The aforesaid letter and specimen handwriting were sent to the FSL, Bhopal. In his report Ex. P/16, Addl. State Examiner of Documents R.P. Pathak (PW 15) opined that the handwriting of both the documents was of the one and the same person i.e. of co-accused Rahul Singh. (vi) After completing the investigation, the Police submitted the charge-sheet. 4. On being charged with the offences under Sections 302, 342, 364A, 365 and 201 read with 34 IPC, the appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. 5. (vi) After completing the investigation, the Police submitted the charge-sheet. 4. On being charged with the offences under Sections 302, 342, 364A, 365 and 201 read with 34 IPC, the appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. 5. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses in all. No evidence was adduced in defence. 6. Legality and propriety of the impugned convictions have been assailed on the following grounds: (i) There is no direct evidence against the appellant and his conviction is based only upon the circumstantial evidence of recovery of articles, but neither this recovery suggests commission of the crime by the appellant nor the chain of circumstances could be completed. (ii) According to the prosecution, the deceased was playing chess in the house of co-accused Rahul and not in the house of the appellant. His dead body as well as the ransom letter was also recovered from his (Rahul's) house. The handwriting of the ransom letter was found to be of Rahul. The memorandum statement of co-accused Rahul is not admissible in evidence against the appellant, and he has nothing to do with the alleged recoveries. (iii) There was no motive on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased. (iv) The appellant has no criminal antecedents. 7. Per contra, the learned Panel Lawyer, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence, has contended that the impugned conviction was fully justified. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and have perused the record. 9. The appellant has not challenged the death of the deceased on the alleged date, time and place of incident and its homicidal nature before this Court; therefore, we need not to dwell on these issues. However, we have gone through the statements of Lalita Singh (PW 1), her sister Savita (PW 5), Radha Devi (PW 6), Ashish Soni (PW 8), Dr. O.P. Choudhary (PW 4), Investigating Officer R. Patel (PW 14) and other witnesses and also perused the FIR Ex. P/2, Merg Intimation Ex. P/1, Spot Map Ex. P/3, Post-Mortem Report Ex. P/6 and satisfied ourselves and confirm the findings of the trial Court on both the issues that on 12.04.2010 between 3:30 to 5:30 deceased Annu @ Indrabhan died and his death was homicidal in nature. 10. P/2, Merg Intimation Ex. P/1, Spot Map Ex. P/3, Post-Mortem Report Ex. P/6 and satisfied ourselves and confirm the findings of the trial Court on both the issues that on 12.04.2010 between 3:30 to 5:30 deceased Annu @ Indrabhan died and his death was homicidal in nature. 10. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the entire prosecution case is that Rahul (co-accused/juvenile) had gone to the house of the deceased, played chess with him for some time and thereafter took him (deceased) with him to his house to continue the game (to play chess), the body of the deceased was found in his (Rahul's) room, both the letters of ransom were found to be in his handwriting, even then the police have implicated the appellant while on the alleged date of the incident, he (appellant) was at his job on snacks manufacturing shop of Sonu Agrawal. 11. It is further contended that the prosecution has relied only on the evidence of "last seen together" and recovery of a letter on the instigation of the appellant, but both these facts are not proved by the evidence produced before the trial Court, therefore, the conviction of the appellant is bad in law and be set aside. 12. The prosecution has opposed the prayer and has supported the impugned judgment. The State has not disputed that the conviction of the appellant is based on the grounds referred to above by the learned counsel for the appellant. But the learned Panel Lawyer representing the State, has refuted the claim of the appellant that both the grounds could not be established. The learned Panel Lawyer referred to the several paragraphs of the statements of prosecution witnesses namely Lalita Singh (PW 1), Savita (PW 5), Radha Devi (PW 6), Gajendra Bhan Singh (PW 7), Ashish Soni (PW 8) and of Town Inspector/Investigating Officer R. Patel (PW 14) and has relied upon the documents viz. the merg intimation (Ex. P/1) and FIR (Ex. P/2) lodged immediately after the incident. He further submits that both the facts that the appellant was with the deceased at the time when he was last seen alive and that a letter written by the co-accused Rahul was concealed and was later recovered on the basis of disclosure made by the appellant have been proved beyond any doubt by producing cogent and convincing evidence. He further submits that both the facts that the appellant was with the deceased at the time when he was last seen alive and that a letter written by the co-accused Rahul was concealed and was later recovered on the basis of disclosure made by the appellant have been proved beyond any doubt by producing cogent and convincing evidence. The statements of the witnesses have remained intact in their cross-examination. There is no ground to disbelieve or even to suspect their veracity; therefore, he submits that the appellant has rightly been convicted by the trial Court. He prays for dismissal of the appeal. 13. Since the death and its nature is not in dispute and the entire prosecution case rests upon the aforesaid two grounds, we are directly appreciating the statements of the witnesses and the documents proved by the prosecution to find out as to whether the prosecution could prove them or not. 14. Before the trial Court, cousin of the deceased viz. Lalita has categorically stated that on the date of the incident the deceased had come to her house. Co-accused Rahul (juvenile/co-accused) and appellant Sachin who are their neighbour and with whose family they were enjoying good relations, had also come to her house at about 1:30 pm to play chess with the deceased. They played there for some time and at about 3:30 pm, they both took the deceased with them stating that they will continue the game at the house of Rahul. Having good relations with their parents, she never suspected anything and allowed the deceased to go with both of them. When the deceased did not come back up to 5:30 pm, she went to the house of Rahul and inquired about him. Rahul informed that the deceased has gone with the appellant. Without any suspicion, she relied on the statement of Rahul and asked him to accompany her to the market to buy some vegetables. Rahul agreed and accompanied her. When she came back home at about 7:30 pm, her sister Savita informed that the deceased had yet not come back. Worried by this, she along with her sister Savita (PW 5) started a search for him in the colony but did not find him. They again went to the house of Rahul and inquired about him from his (Rahul's) grandmother Radhabai. Worried by this, she along with her sister Savita (PW 5) started a search for him in the colony but did not find him. They again went to the house of Rahul and inquired about him from his (Rahul's) grandmother Radhabai. They all went to search him upstairs up to the room of Rahul. The room was locked. When Radhabai asked for the keys, Rahul told her that the keys are misplaced. Radhabai pulled open the lock and they found the dead body of the deceased in the room. It was kept in the lower shelf of the almirah kept in the room. There was a strip on his mouth and a rope in the neck. Legs and hands were also tied up with a rope. Shocked and bewildered by the scene, they immediately removed the cloth from the mouth and untied his legs and hands, picked him up in the arms and brought him downstairs. Hearing their clamour, neighbour Ashish and Deepak (PW 10) rushed towards the spot. She requested them and they both took the deceased to the hospital by their motorcycle, where Doctor declared him brought dead. 15. Sister Savita (PW 5), Mother of the deceased viz. Kanchan Singh (PW 2), Balak Singh (PW 3), Grandmother of Rahul viz. Radha Devi (PW 6), 13-year-old elder brother of the deceased viz. Gajendrabhan Singh (PW 7), Ashish Soni (PW 8), Deepak Kumar Namdeo (PW 10) have supported the statement of Lalita (PW 5) on different aspects and the sequence of the incident. Nothing contrary could be brought on record in their cross-examination to disbelieve or to doubt their statements. 16. Radha Devi (PW 6) tried to say before the Court that only the deceased and her grandson Rahul had come to her house and the appellant had never come with them, but her statement before the Court is contrary to her statement before the police. She has admitted all the material facts before the Court like the deceased had come with Rahul to her house and had gone to the room of Rahul to play chess. She had not seen him (deceased) going out of the house thereafter. Savita and Lalita had come to search the deceased. She accompanied them up to the room of Rahul in his (deceased) search. The dead body of the deceased was found in the room of Rahul. She had not seen him (deceased) going out of the house thereafter. Savita and Lalita had come to search the deceased. She accompanied them up to the room of Rahul in his (deceased) search. The dead body of the deceased was found in the room of Rahul. They had seen the dead body with legs and hands tied with a rope and mouth stuffed and sealed with a cloth and also a rope wrapped around the neck. Though she was hesitant to admit the arrival of the appellant in her house along with Rahul and the deceased, but she never denied this fact specifically, rather tried to avoid the questions put forth regarding his presence in her house with her grandson Rahul and the deceased Indrabhan. She has been declared hostile. Her police statement wherein she has stated that along with Rahul and Indrabhan, the appellant had also come to her house has been proved by the Investigating Officer-R. Patel (PW 14). Her court statement reflects that she was purposely concealing this fact; therefore, her statement cannot be relied upon to disbelieve the statements of Lalita & Savita and other witnesses, who have supported the case of the prosecution. 17. Witnesses of discovery and seizure of ransom letter namely Del Donale Ram (PW 9) and Baijnath Kewat (PW 12) have also tried to mislead the Court. Del Donale Ram admitted the recovery of the said letter but stated that it was recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused Rahul while Baijnath Kewat has stated that it was recovered from the courtyard of the appellant. They both have been declared hostile and in the cross-examination conducted by the Public Prosecutor, Del Donale Ram has admitted that before getting the documents, Ex. P/9, Ex. P/10 and Ex. P/11 i.e. memos of disclosure, seizure and arrest signed by him, they were read over to him and only thereafter he signed them. Almost similar is the statement of Baijnath. He has also admitted his signature on the disclosure statement Ex. P/9 and seizure Ex. P/10. 18. Investigating Officer R. Patel (PW 14) has deposed on oath that on 12.04.2010 he was In-charge, Police Station Kotma and on that day, Lalita (PW 1) lodged an FIR. Almost similar is the statement of Baijnath. He has also admitted his signature on the disclosure statement Ex. P/9 and seizure Ex. P/10. 18. Investigating Officer R. Patel (PW 14) has deposed on oath that on 12.04.2010 he was In-charge, Police Station Kotma and on that day, Lalita (PW 1) lodged an FIR. After receiving information, he rushed to the spot, called the witnesses and prepared the memo of corps and spot map, sent the body for post-mortem, went to the room of Rahul and recovered rope, clothes, a piece of gamcha (scarf), sari, broken lock etc., arrested the appellant and inquired about the incident before Del Donale Ram and Baijnath. He disclosed that he had concealed the letter for ransom written by co-accused Rahul in the courtyard of Rahul under the plants and leaves. Following this disclosure, he recovered the said letter and seized the same vide seizure memo. His statement is well supported by Merg intimation Ex. P/1, FIR Ex. P/2, spot map Ex. P/3, P.M. report Ex. P/6, disclosure memo Ex. P/9, seizure memo Ex. P/10 and arrest memo Ex. P/11 prepared by him. Except for a few formal type suggestions, which he denied, statement of this witness has not been substantially challenged. Neither his neutrality nor integrity has been questioned. There is no other reason available on record to disbelieve him. 19. Thus, both the facts that the appellant was last seen in the company of the deceased and that the letter of ransom was recovered on his instance, were rightly found proved by the trial Court. This leaves no scope for interference in the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court. 20. Recovery of a letter written to demand money to release the abductee is more than enough to establish the motive and clean antecedent cannot be a ground for acquittal. Therefore, both these grounds taken by the appellant are also not helpful for him. 21. False implication is not the defence of the appellant. 20. Recovery of a letter written to demand money to release the abductee is more than enough to establish the motive and clean antecedent cannot be a ground for acquittal. Therefore, both these grounds taken by the appellant are also not helpful for him. 21. False implication is not the defence of the appellant. Unchallenged or rather admitted good relation between all the three families of the deceased, co-accused Rahul and the appellant to the extent that even when the deceased did not come back home and on inquiry, Rahul intimated that he has gone with the appellant, sister of the deceased Lalita never doubted his conduct or statement and took him with her to the market to buy some vegetables, rules out even a remote possibility of false implication and this ultimately makes the statements of the sisters of the deceased trustworthy. 22. The appellant has taken the defence that he was an employee of Sonu Agrawal and at the time of the incident, he was on duty at his snacks shop. But he did not try to prove this defence by producing evidence. Even he did not examine his employer before the Court to say that he was his employee or that on the date of the incident he was on duty at his shop. He tried to establish this fact through the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, but none of them has given any favourable answer. Some of the witnesses have admitted that the appellant was an employee of some snack shop but no one has admitted that he was on duty at the shop during the time of the incident. The trial Court has discussed this defence in paragraph 26 of the impugned judgment and has rightly discarded the same. 23. In view of the above, we are of the candid view that none of the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant is tenable. The trial Court has analyzed the statement of each and every witness so also the documents placed on record. There is no scope to discredit the testimony of PW-1, 5 and 14 and other cited witnesses. The appreciation of evidence done by the trial Court meets the requirement to establish the guilt. The trial Court has analyzed the statement of each and every witness so also the documents placed on record. There is no scope to discredit the testimony of PW-1, 5 and 14 and other cited witnesses. The appreciation of evidence done by the trial Court meets the requirement to establish the guilt. Considering the totality of the facts and evidence, in our view, the evidence relied upon by the prosecution is sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the offences charged against him. 24. We find no reason to arrive at a finding different from the one recorded by the learned trial court in regard to the complicity of the appellant in committing the murder of Annu @ Indrabhan. Hence, the impugned conviction and sentence are maintained and the appeal is dismissed being bereft of merits.