BHAGIRATH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under section 374 of the Cr.P.C. by 6 accused appellants being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow in Sessions Trial No.31672002 on 26.06.2003 and they are convicted and sentenced as under:_ <IMG>JUDGEMENT_6_MPWN3_2012image1.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_6_MPWN3_2012image2.jpg</IMG>

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are that on 22.01.2002 at 10.30 p.m. in the night the custom Sub-Inspector Deepsingh Rathore received an information that Rakesh alias Don and his companions were concealing illicit liquor in the culvert at Gujarkheda, Mhow amongst the bushes. On receiving the said information the Sub-Inspector J.K. Pathak, Constable Kanhaiyalal, Subhashchandra, Babulal, Harikishan and witnesses Munnalal and Ramkeshisingh by jeep bearing registration No.M.P.09-H.C.4193 left for Gujarkheda Muktidham and when they reached the culvert near the bushes, they saw through light of the headlights of the jeep, that Mukesh alias Don, Vijay s/o. Munnalal, Jitendra, Vijay s/o. Champalal; were hiding the English liquor (foreign liquor) and they were apprehended at the spot with 32 cartons of foreign liquor, and old custail rum bottles amounting to total of 1536 quarters. However, on being confronted they attacked these public officers in the course of their duties with lethal weapons and tried to commit the murder of Sub-Inspector Deep Singh Rathore and Ramkesh. They also hurled abuses of mother and sister and hence after being apprehended from the spot; offences under sections 224, 307, 225, 332, 294, 341 of the IPC and 25 (1-B)(b) of the Arms Act also against the accused Vijay s/o. Champalal, Vijay s/o. Munnalal, Jitendra and Ranjit offences under sections 224, 353 and 294 of the IPC were recorded against them. Thereafter the investigation was launched. The procedure was duly completed after their arrest. The accused were committed to their trial.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellants has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication. The Trial Court had already exonerated all the appellants from offence under section 307 of the IPC. There were material omissions and contradictions in the statements of material witnesses. Moreover Counsel urged that the independent witnesses Munna P.W.12, Anshuman Krishnan P.W.I3 and the witnesses of seizure have not supported the prosecution case and therefore the seizure memo Ex.P/11 and the arrest memo Ex.P/12 are contrary to the provisions of law and ought to have been disregarded and Counsel prayed that the impugned conviction be set aside. In the alternate Counsel prayed that keeping in mind the application under section 427 of the Cr.P.C. this Court be pleased to direct that the sentence shall run concurrently since the accused is now facing the prosecution since 2003 and the incident is of the year 2002.