CHANDRA MOHAN TIWARI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appellants, namely, Chandra Mohan Tiwari and Ram Pal Singh Sengar have filed this criminal appeal canvassing the correctness and legality of the judgment and order dated 17th of November 1978 of the High Court of Madbya Pradesh at Jabalpur rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 477 of 1973, whereby the High Court has allowed the appeal preferred by the State by setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and convicted the first appellant under Section 302 IPC and the second appellant under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE matrix of the case which had led to the filing of this appeal briefy stated is as follows: P.W. 6 Ahiwaransingh was at the material time, a compounder in the Veterinary Hospiuli, Budhni. He was residing in one of the quarters situated in the compound of the Veterinary Hospital. On the opposite side of the compound there are Government quarters, one of which was occupied by appellant Ram Pal Singh (Appellant No.2), who was serving as Gram Sevak in the Block Development Office. He is married and distantly related to PW -6. The first appellant Chandra Mohan Tiwari was wielding high influence in that locality and was well known to the members of the family of PW -6. It appears that he contested the election to the Legislative Assembly from Budhni constituency.

(3.) THE victim Saroj, when examined before the Magistrate on 12.7.1991 stated in her statement Ex. P/25 that she was kidnapped by both the appellants and wrongfully confined and also subjected to sexual intercourse and that she lodged the false report Ex.D/15 at the Hoshangabad police station under duress and as instructed by the second appellant herein. The Magistrate discharged the first appellant, and committed the second appellant alone to take his trial. On a revision preferred against the order of discharge of the first appellant both the appellants were put up for trial before the third Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Case Nos. 66 and 95 of 1972 for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. During the said trial both appellants were on bail. The case was fixed for recording evidence from 21.8.1972 on which date the victim Saroj was to be examined as a prosecution witness. While the matter stood thus, according to the prosecution, on 20.6.72 Saroj lodged a report Ex.P/7 at Budhni Police Station complaining that the second appellant had forcibly entered into the backyard of her house, but took to his heels when she raised a hue and cry.