Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 669 (MP)

Ramesh Chandra v. State of M. P.

2024-10-16

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2024
JUDGMENT : SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J. 1. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 12.9.2024 the appellant was directed to mark his presence before this Court and pursuant to which he is also present in the court. 2. Since the appeal is pending since 2001, and the incident has taken place in the year 1998, the appeal is heard finally with consent of the parties. 3. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 26.4.2001, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Agar, District Shajapur in S.T. No. 117/99, whereby, finding the appellant guilty, the learned Judge of the trial Court has convicted him as under: Conviction Sentence OFFENCE ACT IMPRISONMENT FINE IN DEFAULT 366/34 IPC 6 YEARS R.I. Rs. 500/- 2 months 109/366 IPC 6 YEARS R.I. -- -- 120-B IPC 6 YEAR R.I -- -- 4. In brief, the facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case was lodged on 8.12.1998; whereby Badrilal (PW-1) the father of the victim Seema Bai alleged that the appellant Ramesh Chandra and other co-accused persons namely Vikram Singh and Ram Prasad have abducted his daughter. During the course of investigation, the appellant and co-accused Ram Prasad were arrested, whereas other co-accused Vikram absconded. Subsequently, after filing of the charge-sheet, the learned Judge of the trial Court, after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties on record, convicted the appellant as aforesaid whereas co-accused Ram Prasad has been acquitted. Hence, this appeal. 5. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the victim Seema Bai (PW-8) (whether her evidence can be considered in this appeal), the abductee was the wife of the present appellant and there was some dispute going on between them which led her to run away from the house of the appellant, as a result of which the appellant also filed a missing person report, and his defence towards trial was that his wife had left the house on her own. 6. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant happens to be the husband of Seema and there was no reason for him to abduct his own wife. 6. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant happens to be the husband of Seema and there was no reason for him to abduct his own wife. It is submitted that she had actually run away with the co-accused Vikram which has also been suggested to PW-1 Badrilal who is the father of Seema, that there are rumors in village Badodiya that Seema has run away somewhere, to which he has not denied but has feigned ignorance. 7. Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that subsequently, the co-accused Vikram was also arrested, and thereafter the prosecutrix was recovered after a period of around 6 years, and Badrilal (PW-1), the father of the victim, in his subsequent deposition has stated that he has come to know around six months ago that his daughter had eloped with co-accused Vikram, and also that she was having a dispute with appellant Rameshchandra. Thus, it is submitted that the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the learned judge of the trial Court only on the testimony of the Badrilal (PW-1) father of the victim, hence, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. 8. Counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the prayer. 9. Heard. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction of the appellant, only on the basis of deposition of Badrilal (PW-1) the father of the victim cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as no efforts were made to locate the victim at that time, whereas, Badrilal (PW-1) has also been suggested in Para 9 of his cross examination that Seema has eloped with the co-accused Vikram, to which he has denied. Thus, the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the appellant. 10. Thus, the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the appellant. 10. This court also finds that the victim Seema Bai (PW-8) has also been examined subsequently, on 3.8.2004, in the trial of accused Vikram who was arrested subsequently, i.e. after the conviction of the present appellant, and has deposed in favour of co-accused Vikram, and in respect of the present appellant she has stated that she was having a dispute with him and has also stated that the appellant had taken her to a hotel, and left her there, and after waiting for him till evening, she went along with co-accused Vikram Singh with whom she got married and has three children out of the said wedlock. Thus, the entire prosecution story is belied by victim Seema (PW-8) herself when she stated that she had eloped with co-accused Vikram Singh. 11. Although, this court is well aware of the settled legal position that the appellate court can only consider the evidence adduced in the particular trial from which the appeal has arisen, and cannot take into account the evidence adduced in the other trial, and otherwise also, this court could have sent the matter back to the trial court by resorting to s.367 or s.391 of Cr.P.C. to take further evidence in the case, after the abductee Seema was recovered, but considering the fact that it has already been around 26 years when the offence took place and whereabouts of Seema are also not known, and her evidence has totally changed the story of the prosecution from one of abduction to one of elopement, it would only add to further harassment of the appellant to ask him to again go back to trial court for the purposes of cross examination of his wife, who had eloped with co-accused Vikram, on her own volition. 12. 12. Thus, in such exceptional circumstances, while invoking the powers vested in this court u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice, while taking judicial notice of the deposition of abductee (PW-8) Seema in the subsequent trial, who was not available in the trial of the appellant, it is held that the appellant is liable to be acquitted of the offence of abduction, also on the ground that in the subsequent trial of co-accused Vikramsingh, the abductee Seema herself has stated that on the date of incident, she went with the co-accused Vikramsingh only, when the appellant did not come back to take her. 13. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 26.4.2001 cannot be sustained on the both the counts as aforesaid, and the same is hereby set aside. The appellant is hereby acquitted from the aforesaid offence. Appellant is on bail, his bail bonds and surety are hereby discharged. 14. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands allowed and disposed of. 15. Copy of this order be sent to concerned trial Court.