SUKHLAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED Sukhalal and Gyansingh (appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 158/ 92), Amolsingh (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 165/92) and Hanumantsingh and Govindsingh (appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 186/92) have been convicted and sentenced under Section 399, I. P. C. to a term of 5 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine another term of 1 1/2 year was awarded and under Section 402, I. P. C. to a term of 3 years R. I. and under Section 402, I. P. C. to a term of three years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine another terms of one year R. I. was awarded and appellants Amolsingh, Hanumantsingh, Sukhlal and Gyansingh were further convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act to a term of one year by Shri" G. N. Goyal, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore, district Shivpuri, by order dated 8-7- 1992. Out of these persons accused Gyansingh has died and his appeal has abated, vide order dated 13-10-1995.

(2.) THE prosecution stroy leading to the conviction of the appellants as unfolded from the material on record is that PW 7 R. V. Sharma, the then officer-in-charge P. S. Khaniadhana got an information from an informant on 21-2-1990 which was entered in Rojnamcha at Item No. 561 ' date 21-2-1960 and on the basis of that information he along with SDO (P) PW 4 Bhagwatsing Chauhan, PW 1 S. I. Ramrajsingh Tomar, PW" 3 M. L. Sharma, AIS R. P. Tiwari and other members of the Force proceeded on police vehicle for near Devrani Jethani Toria and they reached there. Shri Bhagwatsingh Chauhan, SDO (P) Pichhore gave instructions and according to his instructions the members of the force were divided into three parties, one of the parties was led by the SDO (P) himself, the second party by senior S. O. Bamor Kala and the third by R. B. Sharma himself. The parties went into hiding and after some time they heard Badmashes talking that Siyaram Yadav had sold his land and dacoity be carried out in his. house. The time had arrived. They should move ahead. When the Badmashes came nearer the party SDO (P) threw -a challenge and asked the Badmashes to stop whereupon they started running. In the meantime the party of Shri Sharma with the help of party Nos. 1 and 2 caught hold of all the five Badmashes who gave their names as Hanumant Singh, Amolsingh, Sukhlal, Gyansingh and Govind. All of them were arrested at the spat. Hanumant Singh had a 12 bore SBL gun No. 23884 and 9 live cartridges. Amolsingh had SBL topidar gun and in a bag 100 gm of gun powder, 10 topies and 10 pellets. Sukhlal had a country made Katta in which there was one round and 2 live cartridges Gyansingh had 12 bore country made Katta in which there was one round and one live cartridge and Govind Gadariya had a lathi in his hand. These articles were seized before Panches. Usual investigation had taken place but it is not clear from the material on record as to who had conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet. However, charge-sheet was submitted against accused persons. All the accused persons denied the charge. Accused Sukhlal and Gyansingh (now deceased) alleged that they were implicated on account of enmity. Accused Govind claimed that he was. implicated on the assertion that previous dacoits Shivram and Umrao false (sic ). Hanumant Singh claimed that he was arrested from his house before Jasrath. He had sown his crop which was harvested by dacoits. Amolsingh claimed that he was falsely got implicated by Shivram and his crop was got harvested. He was arrested from Imliya before Ramdas.

(3.) THE prosecution examined PW 1 Ramrajsingh Tomar, the then officer-in-charge of P. S. Bamor Kala, PW 2 Nisar Ahmad who was head constable on 22-2-1990 at P. S. Khaniadhana, PW 3 M. L. Sharma, the then A. S. I. P. S. Bamor Kala, PW 4 Bhagwantsingh Chauhan, the then SDO (P) Pichhore, PW 5 Shravan Kumar, the then, Reader to S. D. O. who were all alleged to be members of the parties. PW 6 Siyaram has also been examined in whose house the occurrence was contemplated, and PW 7 R. B. Sharma, officer-in-charge of Khaniadhana police station on that date and he is the informant. Besides these witnesses the prosecution also relied upon Ex. P-l to P-8. The accused persons also entered upon their defence and examined DW 1 Imrat, DW 2 Gopal, DW 3 Ramdas, DW4 Maharjsingh, DW 5 Jasralh and PW 6 Beeran in their defence. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and considering the material on record held all the accused persons guilty and sentenced them under Sections 399, 402, I. P. C. and under Section 25 Arms Act as aforesaid. Hence they have filed three different appeals. As all the appeals relate to the same occurrence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.