SWAMINATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Swaminath along with Ganpat Singh and Mohan Singh were put on trial for offence under Sections 120, 120-B read with Sections 302 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. First Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhopal by judgment dated 30/06/1993, passed in Sessions Trial No. 99/84, held this appellant guilty of offence under Sections 302, 120-B read with Sections 302 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence under Sections 302 and 120-B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year each for offence under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Other accused persons were also found guilty of offence under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Aggrieved by their conviction, they preferred separate appeals. Ganpat Singh and Mohan Singh died during the pendency of the appeal and, therefore, their appeals had abated. Hence, this judgment is confined to appeal preferred by appellant Swaminath Singh.

(2.) It is an admitted position that from October, 1983 to the date of incident i.e. 2-2-1984, appellant Swaminath was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police at T. T. Nagar Police Station in the town of Bhopal. In November, 1983, on a report lodged by one Sushila Bai before the T. T. Nagar Police Station, a case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against accused Mohan Singh and the investigation of the said case was entrusted to this appellant Swaminath. It is further an admitted position that during the course of investigation, appellant Swaminath went to Vidisha in November, 1983 and sought information as regard the criminal record of Mohan Singh. After the investigation, appellant Swaminath found the allegation levelled by Sushila Bai to be untrue and accordingly submitted the final report. It is also admitted that a case under Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the deceased Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar at T. T. Nagar Police Station on 28-1-1984 on a report given by accused Ganpat Singh and from 29-1-1984 to 1-2-1984 appellant did not report for duty at the Police Station and remained at Vidisha. There is further no dispute that on 31-1-1984 appellant wrote (Ex. P/42) to the Officer-in-charge of the Kotwali Police Station of Vidisha, Raghuveer Singh (PW-11) for deployment of Police Force, to arrest Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar, at which on 1-2-1984 at the instruction of Raghuveer Singh, constables Man Singh and Moolchand (PW-5) were assigned duties to assist the appellant to arrest Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar and for his transfer to Bhopal with 303 Bore Rifle. There is further no dispute that on 1-2-1984 at about 12 p.m. appellant Swaminath went to Ram Dwara at Vidisha and informed Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar that he had come to arrest him in connection with the report given by accused Ganpat Singh at T.T. Nagar Police Station, Bhopal and after his arrest, went to the Kotwali Police Station at Vidisha at 3 p.m. along with constables Moolchand (PW-5) and Man Singh and made entries in the daily register at 3 p.m. It is also admitted that on the next day i.e. 2-2-1984 this appellant made entry in the daily register, took out Shiv Prasad from the lock-up and at the instance of the appellant, constable Moolchand handcuffed the deceased Shiv Prasad and gave the key of the handcuff to the appellant. On 2-2-1984 Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar died.

(3.) According to the prosecution, a Trust known as "Ram Dwara Trust" belonging to Ramsnehi sect exists at Vidisha and the responsibility to look after the movable and immovable property of the Trust lay with the Mahant. According to the prosecution, one Nishanshay Ram was the Mahant of that Trust and one Amolakram also used to live with him. There was dispute between Nishanshay Ram and Amolakram with regard to the office of the Mahant, which ultimately developed into serious dispute between them. Accused Mohan Singh along with other persons sided with Nishanshay Ram whereas the deceased Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar was the main supporter of Amolakram and with his help, Amolakram became the Mahant of the Ram Dwara Trust and in a public function he declared Shiv Prasad as his successor. During this period, Nishanshay Ram and Amolakram used to sell the landed property of the Trust and for that, Nishanshay Ram executed power of Attorney in favour of accused Mohan Singh. According to the prosecution, accused Mohan Singh retired from the post of Head Master of a Govt. Primary School in the year 1979. The Trust had also established a school and accused Mohan was one of the members of the Governing Body of the said school, of which Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar was the President. Accused Mohan was also the Headmaster of the said school for some time, but in the year 1982 deceased Shiv Prasad not only removed him from the post of Headmaster, but also removed him from the Governing Body of the school and for that, relationship between the deceased Shiv Prasad and accused Mohan became tense. Prosecution story further is that accused Ganpat Singh was also annoyed with the deceased Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar as he suspected that deceased had got dacoity committed in his house and as such he also joined accused Mohan Singh in the tirade against Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar. The disputes and differences between them were such that the Police resorted to prohibitory proceeding.