BHAGGURAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order of conviction, recorded by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, conviciin0 appellant No. 5 Under Section 330 of the IPC and sentencing him to four years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and also Under Section 203 IPC to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Appellants Nos. 1 to 4 are convicted Under Section 330 IPC and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment, through judgment dated 8-11-1979 in Sessions Trial No. 184 of 1978.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants were tried Under Sections 304 and 330 of the I- P- C. on the allegation that on 9-7-1975, while appellant No. 5 was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station. Morar and appellant No. 4 as Head Constable, the remaining appellants were posted as Police Constables. They caused iniuries to the deceased Paris John with a view to extract confession from him, in relation to a theft committed at the house of Prahlad Narain in Shastri Nagar, Morar, in Quarter No. 85. Appellant No. 5 was also tried under S- 203 IPC for having made false entries in police record. According to the prosecution, in Shastri Nagar, two thefts were committed in the night of 8-7-1975, one at the house of Prahlad Narain (P. W. 5) and the other at the house of Chunni Lai, who is not examined. It js alleged that Chunnilal's son Basant Lai was injured in that incident. He is also not examined. Initially, the case of prosecution, as recorded in the document and as mentioned in Ex. D/l'3, an application sent by the aunt of the deceased to the Collector, was that deceased was caught in the neighbouring area bv public. Thereafter, it is alleged that information was sent to Police station, Morar, whereupon, appellant No. 5 and other accused persons came to Sha-tri Nagar and took Paris John in custody. Thereafter, he wag sent to the Police Station and on a search of his body, Article A-Cable (thick iron wire tied around his waist), Article B-scissors, especially designed for cutting lock?, Article A-a pant and Article D-a pair of shoes, were seized from him in presence cf Ramhet Sharma (P. W. 1) through seizure Memo (Ex. P/l ). Statement of Ramhet Sharma was recorded as p. W, 1. Prosecution also examined Chandir alias Narendra Singh who was in custody of the appellants along with Paris John and Narendra Singh, it is alleged that he enquired as to why Paris John was arrested by the Police. On 10-7-1975, a magisterial enquiry Under Section 176, Cr. P. C. was held by Shri Dixit, Additional District Magistrate, who is examined as P- W. 29. In enquiry, Shri Dixit examined certain witnesses, who claimed that they have seen the incident and also seen Paris John. It is further submitted that Mrs. Rebecca John, mother of Paris John, lodged a complaint before the District Magistrate and it is exhibited as Ex. D/10. The Prosecution has examined in support of the story Surai Singh Yadav (P. W. 19), Mangilal (P. W. 8), Nihal Singh (P. W. 9), Narsingh (P. W. 10), Radheshyam (P. W. 11 ). Mohan Singh (P. W. 12), Jagdish Prasad" (P. W. 13), Basant Rao Mandre (P. W. 16), Shyam (P. W. 20) and Data Ram (P. W. 21 ).

(3.) THE prosecution story, in short, is that on 9-7-1975, the then Police Sub-Inspector accused Tulsiram Hindoliya and Bhagguram, constable were stationed at Thana, Morar, and to investigate crime No. 207/75 Under Section 458. IPC read with Section 380 IPC showed their departure from the Police Station. Along with them, Head Constable Makarand Singh, Constables Prem Singh, Munshi Singh, went to Shastri Nagar for investigating the abovementioned crime. At Shastri Nagar, Tulsiram Hindoliya arrested Paris John alias Ranu in connection with the said offence and Save him beating with cane and lathi with a view that he may give the place where he has hidden the stolen articles. This, he did in the presence of the persons slaying at Shastri Nagar. When the condition of Paris John became serious and his pant was spoilt because of urine and stoojs, he was taken in a tempo to the Police Station, Morar. There were many injuries on the body of Paris John. The accused made no arrangement for the treatment of Paris John and on the contrary, they kept him in custody. While he was in the custody of the above Police Officer and the constables, he became unconscious. Accused Tulsiram Hindoliya did not enter the fact of arrest of Paris John in the Police record and suppressed the real facts dishonestly.