NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Judgment shall also govern disposal of Criminal Appeal NoA06 of 1989 (Kaluwa, alias, Kaluram & others v. State of Madhya Pradesh), which arises out of the same Judgment. It appears that 8 appellants involved in Cr. Appeal No406/89 were convicted for offence u/s 395 I.P.C. and sentenced to 4 years R.I. by Judgment dated 20-1-1989 passed by AddI. Sessions Judge, Panna in Sessions Trial No.23/88. In addition, appellants Kaluram, Naresh and Mandhari were also found guilty under section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one years R.I. All the 8 convicts have preferred their appeal from Jail, which is subject matter of Cr. Appeal NoA06 of 1989. Appellant Narayan Singh has also preferred this appeal through his Advocate. That is the reason why both the appeals are being heard and decided by this Judgment.

(2.) Prosecution alleges that in the night between 21st and 22nd September, 1987, Harkesh (P.W.1), Vinod Kumar (P.W.2) and other members of the family were sleeping in their house. In the night, his wife shouted that some thieves had entered into the house. They, therefore, entered into the room and locked themselves from within. The miscreants, however, broke open the door of the house, entered into the same and thereafter attempted breaking over the door where Harkesh and others had locked themselves in. Harkesh opened the door out of fear. His hands as also the hands of his son Vinod Kumar (P.W.2) were thereafter tied. They were beaten. The ladies were locked inside a room. Thereafter, the miscreants demanded Rs.25,000/- cash and 5 Kg. gold and since Harkesh and Vinod were unable to give the same, they were very badly beaten. The lades were taken out of the room and asked about the ornaments. A search was, therefore, made and lot of gold and silver ornaments were taken away. According to Harkesh (P.W.1), 4 persons had entered into the house. Shivprasad had seen other two behind the house of Harkesh, keeping a watch. The report of the incident was lodged and thereafter all appellants apprehended. Lot of stolen property was also recovered on the basis of their statements. Harkesh and Vinod were medically examined and reports about injuries sustained by them are Ex.P/29 & Ex.P/30. Appellant Ramlal gave his memorandum (Ex.P/9) and discovered 1 Payal and 1 sword, which were seized as per Ex.P/22. Appellant Kaluwa, alias, Kaluram gave his memorandum, as per Ex.P/1O and discovered 1 Payal, which was seized vide Ex.P/20. Narayan Singh similarly discovered one pair of silver Chhanni, which was seized as per Ex.P/21. Appellant Mandhari discovered one Mangalsutra and a gun, which were seized from him vide Ex.P/18. Appellant Pimmu discovered one pair of Payal and 5 Bichhiyas, which were seized vide Ex.P/19. Premlal discovered one ladies H.M.T. watch, which was seized vide Ex.P/15. Appellant Zaheer discovered one pair of silver Chuda which was seized vide Ex.P/17 and appellant N aresh Prasad discovered 1 pair of Payal, 1 watch, 1 silver ring, 2 gold Mohars, 1 gold ring, I gold J humki, which were seized vide Ex.P/25. These properties were properly identified in the identification parade. Appellants were also put on test identification parade on 9.1.1988. Harkesh identified appellant Kalluram and Narayan Singh, who were also identified by Vinod Kumar. Shivprasad identified Premlal and Mandhari. Thereafter, the appellants were put on trial as aforesaid. The learned trial Judge, relying on the evidence of Harkesh. (P.W. 1) Vinod Kumar (P.W.2), Shivprasad (P.W.11) and also the evidence of identification, held the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them, as aforesaid.

(3.) Question requiring consideration is, Twhether the evidence on record justifies the aforesaid conviction and sentence? Evidence of, Harkesh, who had also lodged the report (Ex.P/1), is that he was in his house. On hearing a gun fire, his wife Rajjibai and daughter Nibbibai started shouting. They were, therefore, brought together in a room upstairs and all of them locked themselves in. 4 persons, however, entered into the house and wanted to open the door; 2 of them were armed with guns. Harkesh being afraid, opened the door. Both he and his son Vinod were tied and Rajjibai and Nibbibai locked into a room. Harkesh was given beating and asked to give money. Vinod Kumar was also similarly beaten. They searched the house and ultimately took away lot of gold and silver ornaments. This version finds support from the report (Ex.P/I) also. Statement of Dr.D.KJain (P.W.6), who had medically examined Harkesh and found several injuries on his person provides further con-oboration. Vinod Kumar (P.W .2) also provides the said corroboration. Under the circumstances, there is overwhelming evidence on record to establish that 4 persons had entered into the house of Harkesh, beaten him and looted his gold, silver ornaments and other properties. The memoranda given by the appellants and recovery made in terms thereof further indicate that properties were found from the possession of the appellants. In such a situation, the only question requiring consideration is whether the appellants were properly identified?