RAMESH KUMAR SONI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN occurrence took place on 5.6.1984 at about 3.45 p.m. inside the compound of tahsil Seondha, district Datia, P.W. 2, Radheshyam, Clerk -cum -Cashier of Punjab National Bank, Seondha and Ramprakash Shukla, P.W. 3, the then Chowkidar of the said Bank were going after taking money from the treasury in a attachee. As soon as they reached the aforesaid place three persons met them and one of them sprinkled chilli powder in the eyes of PW 3, Ramprakash Shukla, who was driving the cycle and Radheshyam was sitting on the carrier. As a result of sprinking of chilli powder both of them fell down from the cycle. One of the Badmashes attacked Radheshyam Gupta with a danda and a third by his katta. The attachee containing money was snatched. Gupta was threatened to be killed with katta and Badmashes snatched the attachee and escaped. After the occurrence Ramprakash Shukla, P.W. 3, was directed by Shri Gupta to inform the Manager of the Bank and hence he went there. O.P. Sharma was the Manager at that time. He got threatened and perplexed. He went straight to the police station where the Station Officer was not available. He then went to the S.D.O. (P) and reported. The report is Ex. P -1. On the basis of the written report a case was registered. Usual investigation took place on 9.6.84. P.W. 13, Rajendrasingh Raghuvanshi arrested accused Ramesh and prepared arrest memo Ex. P -59. He also recorded his statement whereupon he made a confessional statement with respect to the fact that he had hidden a sum of Rs. 94,200/ - in his private temple Anupganj Seondha and he made recovery, he recorded his statement Ex. P -61 and went to that place. Ramesh thereafter took out a Potli which contained a sum of Rs. 94,200/ -. Panchnama Ex. P -61 was prepared by him. He also prepared site plan of that place, Ex. P -62. Again enquiry was made from Ramesh, and as a result of his disclosure Ex. P -49 was prepared by him. He thereafter went to the shop of Rambihari. On being taken to that place by Ramesh he took out a paint and bush -shirt Panchnama of which is Ex. P -53. The recovered articles were Article No. G -1 and G -3. Enquiry was also made from Rambihari and on his disclosure accused Govindsingh Parihar had given him Rs. 20,800/ - which he had kept in his house and he could got it recovered. He prepared panchnama Ex. P -48 and went to that place and made recovery of Rs. 20,800/ -. The memo of while is Ex. P -45. P.W. 14, Ramgulam Dohre arrested accused Ajmersingh on 11.6.84, vide memo Ex. P -47. He also arrested Farid Mohammad on the same day and on an enquiry he disclosed that he had given a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - to Ajmersingh and remaining Rs. 11,000/ - out of a sum of Rs. 21,000/ - was kept by him and he will get the recovery made. The memo Ex. P -51 was prepared by him. In accordance with the information the accused took him to his house where he took out a plastic bag in which money was kept. Panchnama Ex. P -56 was prepared. He also enquired from Farid Mohammad and Govindsingh and came to know that Govindsingh had hidden a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - and a 12 bore katta with its cartrides in his house. He prepared memo Ex. P -50 and accompanied the accused, notes were recovered and memo Ex. P -55 was prepared. Farid Mohammad also disclosed about the attachee which too was recovered and memo Ex. P -68 was prepared. Search at the house of Ajmersingh was also made. Ex. P -47 was prepared. There was also recovery of Rs. 10,000/ - and recovery memo Ex. P -58 was prepared. The accused persons as welt as articles recovered were put up for test identification. After completion of the investigation a charge -sheet was submitted against all the accused persons. The learned trial Court charged accused Ramesh Soni, Farid Mohammad and Govindsingh u/s. 392 IPC read with sections 11/13 of the M.P. Daketi avam Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981. Accused Govindsingh was further charged u/s. 25 (1) (a) and 27 of the Arms Act. Accused Ajmersingh and Rambihari were charged u/s. 411 IPC. Accused Rambihari was further charged u/s 216 IPC. Alt the accused persons denied the charge and claimed that the police had falsely implicated them. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and relied upon documents Ex. P -1 to P -58 and several articles which were recovered. Accused persons filed two documents Ex. D -1 and D -2. After considering the evidence and hearing the parties the learned trial Court concluded that the prosecution had proved its case against accused Ramesh Soni, Faridmohammad and Govindsingh and convicted them u/s 392 IPC and u/s. 11/13 of Act 1981 and each one of them sentenced to a term of 5 years R.I. Accused Ajmersingh and Rambihari were, however, acquitted.

(2.) THE State of M.P. has preferred appeal (Cr. Appeal No.1 30/89) against acquittal of Ram Bihari and Ajmersingh whereas Ramesh Soni and Farid Mohammad have preferred Cr. Appeal No. 72/86 and Govindsingh Cr. Appeal No. 87/1 986. As all the three appeals arise out of the same judgement and relate to the same offence, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, pressed the appeal preferred by the State against acquittal of Rambihari and Ajmersingh and contended that there was recovery of looted property from them and they ought to have been convicted u/s. 411 IPC. As far as accused Ramesh Soni, Govindsingh and Farid Mohammad are concerned, he urged that there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused persons for the offence. He urged that there is identification evidence and during identification proceedings the accused persons were correctly identified. There is also evidence u/s. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, resulting in recovery of articles disclosed by accused persons. Even if there are minor contradictions in the statements of witnesses they are not of much significance. Most of the looted property i.e. money and attachee, was recovered and there is no reason to discard the evidence in that regard.