Jagram vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Ashok Kumar Joshi, J

By this appeal filed under Section 374 of the CrPC, appellant has assailed his conviction and sentence recorded by the Special Judge (MPDVPK Act)

Gwalior vide judgment dated 2.4.2005 passed in Special Case No. 29/2003, whereby present appellant has been convicted under Section 364-A of the

IPC, read with Section 13 of the MPDVPK Act and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.

It would be significant to mention here that the original appellant No.2-Dharo S/o Motilal was also convicted and sentenced for the same offences

but during pendency of this criminal appeal, due to his death, his appeal has abated and his name was deleted from the appeal memo.

Prosecution story in brief is that on 10.3.2002 Anant Singh Rawat S/o Nattha Ram, aged 20 years, resident of Karahaiya, in the night at 8 o'clock

had gone to his khalihan for sleeping as the mustard crop was kept there. In next morning, i.e., 11.3.2002 at 8 am complainant Atar Singh (PW-1)

when reached the relating khalihan, Anant Singh was not found there and at nearby places. Thereafter, Anant Singh was searched out in relations

also, but as nothing could be traced out, on 12.3.2002 complainant Atar Singh (PW-1) lodged missing person report at Police Station Karahaiya, which

was recorded in relating Rojnamcha as Ex. P/12-A by Head Constable Udal Singh (PW-17) and thereafter missing person enquiry was conducted by

Head Constable Maharaj Singh (PW-8), wherein the statements of missing person's father and others were recorded. Anant Singh's father Nattha

Ram (PW-2) disclosed in his statement that an unknown person had intimated him that three unknown persons have abducted his son. On this basis,

SHO Karahaiya Ashok Chourasiya (PW-12) on 15.3.2002 registered FIR (Ex.P/9) against three unknown persons for offence punishable under

Section 365 of the IPC. Ashok Chourasiya (PW-12) also prepared spot map (Ex.P/10) on 15.3.2002.

Thereafter, two inland letters by post were received by family members of the abductee, wherein it was disclosed that Anant Singh has been

abducted by two dacoit brothers Gopal Singh and Pratap Singh and ransom amount of Rupees Ten Lacs was demanded for his release. Ashok

Chourasiya on 22.3.2002 vide seizure memo (Ex.P/4) seized one inland letter (Ex.P/2) and he also seized on 2.4.2002 vide seizure memo (Ex.P/11)

second received inland letter (Ex.P/1) on production by Brij Mohan (PW-4) in presence of Gautam Singh (PW-6) and another panch witness.

On 24.4.2002 abductee Anant Singh after being freed from the custody of the abductors reached Police Station Karahaiya and at 14-30 hours ASI,

P.L.Dohre (PW-11) in presence of two panch witnesses prepared his recovery memo (Ex.P/4) and at that time a locked iron chain was tied in the

neck of abductee which was got broken and seized by P.L.Dohre on same day vide seizure memo (Ex.P/3). Thereafter, police statement (Ex.D/1) of

abductee Anant Singh was recorded by P.L.Dohre on 24.4.2002, wherein he disclosed that in the intervening night of 10th and 11th March, 2002 he

was abducted by five to six persons, out of whom two were having guns and later on in mutual conversation of abductors he came to know of their

names as Gopal Gadariya, Pratap Gadariya, Sarnam Adiwasi, Badam Adiwasi, Jagram Adiwasi and Dharo Adiwasi.

During investigation co-accused Sarnam Singh was arrested on 28.6.2002 by P.L.Dohre (PW-11) vide arrest memo (Ex.P/6). Appellant Jagram

was arrested on 29.6.2002 vide arrest memo (Ex.P/7) and deceased appellant Dharo Adiwasi was arrested on 17.8.2002 vide arrest memo (Ex.P/8).

One co-accused Kumher Singh, resident of Karahaiya was also arrested. After completing formalities of the investigation indicating Gopal, Pratap and

Badam as absconders, charge sheet was filed before the Special Court (MPDVPK Act) Gwalior on 24.4.2003.

Special Judge framed the charges under Section 364-A of the IPC read with Section 13 of MPDVPK Act against three accused persons, namely,

present appellant Jagram, Dharo and Sarnam and framed charges under Section 120-B of the IPC read with Section 13 of MPDVPK Act against

Kumher Singh. During trial, Sarnam was declared absconder. Seventeen prosecution witnesses were examined. It was defence of Jagram, Dharo and

Kumher Singh that they have been falsely implicated and appellant Jagram took specific defence that Anant Singh and his family have land dispute

with his mother and Feran Singh Kushwaha (DW-1) was examined on behalf of present appellant Jagram. The trial Court after considering the

evidence adduced by the parties, acquitted Kumher Singh from charge framed against him, but convicted and sentenced the present appellant and

Dharo Adiwasi as aforesaid.

Appearing counsel for the appellant-Jagram vehemently contended that the alleged eye-witness of the abduction Ghansundar (PW-3) did not

support the prosecution's version and it is not clear from the evidence of abductee Anant Singh (PW-7) that how he got freed from the custody of the

abductors and on this point his evidence is contrary to his police statement (Ex.D/1) and there are other material contradictions between his evidence

and police statement regarding his acquaintance with convicted accused persons Jagram and Dharo and the evidence of abductee Anant Singh (PW-

7) is even not corroborated by the evidence of his father Nattha Ram (PW-2) and his brother-in-law Kamal Singh (PW-15), who were declared

hostile and other examined witnesses complainant Atar Singh (PW-1), Gautam Singh (PW-6), Laxman Singh (PW-5), Hargovind (PW-9) and

Ghansundar (PW-3) were also declared hostile. It is further argued that in the present case there is no evidence of any witness regarding payment of

ransom money and on the point of conversation between abductors and abductee's family members and abductee Anant Singh's evidence is

contradicted by his father Nattha Ram (PW-2) and Kamal Singh (PW-15) on material points. It is further argued that from the evidence of Feran

Singh Kushwaha (DW-1) it was proved that the abductee Anant Singh and appellant Jagram were having land dispute as the land allotted by the

Government to Jagram's mother Puniyabai on lease is adjacent to the land of Anant Singh and Anant Singh is desirous to capture that land but the trial

Court erred in placing reliance on totally infirm and weak evidence of abductee Anant Singh (PW-7) alone. Therefore, it is prayed that appeal be

allowed and appellant be acquitted from the relating offences.

Per Contra, appearing Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment by arguing that the trial Court has properly and legally analyzed and

appreciated the entire evidence available on record and due to minor and trivial contradictions and inconsistencies, the evidence of abductee could not

be discarded. Therefore, dismissal of the present appeal is prayed for.

It is clear from the evidence of complainant Atar Singh (PW-1), Nattha Ram (PW-2), Kamal Singh (PW-15) and Anant Singh (PW-7) that in the

intervening night of 10th March and 11th March of 2002, Anant Singh who was sleeping in his khalihan, was abducted by the abductors. On this point,

complainant Atar Singh's (PW-1) evidence is corroborated by the missing person report (Ex. P/12-A) recorded by the Head Constable Udal Singh

(PW-17) on received information from complainant Atar Singh, cousin brother of the abductee. Though Nattha Ram (PW-2), father of the abductee,

has not supported the prosecution's story that few days after abduction of his son, an unknown person intimated him that his son has been abducted by

three unknown abductors and Nattha Ram was declared hostile, but it is clear from the total evidence of Nattha Ram (PW-2) that his elder son Anant

Singh was abducted on the date of incident and thereafter he was searched and he also reported the matter at Police Station Karahaiya, but he

deposed in cross-examination that till date he did not know that his son Anant Singh was abducted by whom.

Kamal Singh (PW-15), brother-in-law of the abductee and resident of village Ghaghota, deposed that about two and half years ago his brother-in-

law Anant Singh was abducted and in newspaper he read that Anant Singh was abducted by Rambabu and Dayaram dacoits but he clearly deposed

that he had not gone anywhere for searching of abductee with his father-in-law Nattha Ram (PW-2) and before release of Anant Singh, he never

talked with Jagram, Dharo and Kumher Singh and till the date of recording of his evidence before the trial Court, he was not knowing that who

abducted Anant Singh but Anant Singh fled away from the custody of the abductors after about one and a half months from his abduction. Kamal

Singh (PW-15) was declared hostile by the prosecution, wherein he denied the suggestion given by the prosecution that after being freed, Anant Singh

intimated him that he was abducted by Badam, Sarnam Adiwasi, residents of village Raipura and Jagram Adiwasi and Dharo, both residents of village

Nainagir.

It is clear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer Ashok Chourasiya (PW-12) and Brij Mohan (PW-4) that after abduction of Anant Singh,

two inland letters were received by post wherein ransom money of rupees ten lacs were demanded and it was also intimated that abduction has been

made by Gopal and Pratap dacoits. Brij Mohan deposed that both inland letters Ex.P/1 and P/2 were read over by him and inland letter (Ex. P/2) was

seized by Ashok Chourasiya on 12.3.2002 vide seizure memo (Ex. P/4) and subsequently received inland letter (Ex.P/1) was seized on 2.4.2002 vide

seizure memo (Ex.P/11). Panch witness of seizure memo (Ex.P/4), Gautam Singh (PW-6) firstly deposed that nothing was seized in his presence from

Brij Mohan though he admitted his signature on it but after declaring him hostile, he admitted the suggestion of prosecution that both inland letters

(Ex.P/1 and P/2) were seized by police from Brij Mohan in his presence.

Though appearing counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that there is no evidence available on record regarding conversation about

ransom money between family members of Anant Singh and alleged abductors and even the evidence of abductee Anant Singh is infirm and

contradictory on the point that how he got freed from the custody of the abductors, therefore, it was not proved that Anant Singh was abducted for

ransom and alternatively it is argued that at the most, offence punishable under Section 365 of the IPC could be found proved.

It is true that the names of tried accused persons before the Special Court, Jagram, Dharo and Kumher Singh were not disclosed in both the seized

inland letters, but each seized inland letter is having different postal stamps including the stamp of relating dates and Anant Singh (PW-7) has clearly

deposed before the trial Court that his abductors compelled him to write these letters regarding demand of ransom money to his family members and

from the contents of each of seized inland letters it is clear that rupees ten lacs as ransom money were demanded in each inland letter and it was also

mentioned in each letter that ransom money be paid prior to ensuing festival of Holi, otherwise abductee would be killed. Therefore, it was proved

from the available oral and documentary evidence on record that abductee Anant Singh (PW-7) was abducted for recovery of ransom money from his

family members and it was threatened by inland letters that if ransom money would not be paid then he would be killed.

Abductee's brother-in-law Kamal Singh (PW-15) and Laxman Singh (PW-5) are panch witnesses of the recovery panchnama (Ex.P/4) of

abductee and seizure memo (Ex.P/3) prepared on 24.4.2002 by P.L.Dohre (PW-11) but both these panch witnesses have deposed in one voice that

the police has not seized any material (chain with lock) from Anant Singh, though Laxman Singh (PW-5) admitted his signature on seizure memo

(Ex.P/3) and both these panch witnesses were declared hostile. Kamal Singh (PW-15) has deposed that Anant Singh was freed about one and half

month after his abduction.

In the cases of abduction for ransom money, the mode of release of abductee has much significance and similarly the fact that prior to it whether

any ransom amount was paid or not is having much importance. It has been observed by this Court in the case of Kheekram vs. State of MP, [1997

(1) MPWN 94, wherein judgment has been reproduced in toto] that police statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC are the base of the

prosecution's case, but in case in hand, there appears material contradictions and inconsistencies between evidence given by the abductee Anant Singh

(PW-7) and his police statement (Ex.D/1) recorded by P.L.Dohre (PW-11) on 24.4.2002 after abductee got freedom.

Anant Singh (PW-7) deposed that in the night of 10th March, 2002 when he was sleeping in his agricultural land on cot, then five persons came

near to him and after being awaken, two out of them who were having long beard were having guns, namely, Gopal and Pratap Baghele and Jagram,

Sarnam and Dhara were also with them and immediately a chain was put on his neck and he was taken to the jungle and his abductors were regularly

changing their places by wandering in the jungle and two inland letters (Ex.P/1 and P/2) were written by him under force of abductors Gopal and

Pratap Baghele. He deposed that Jagram and Dhara were known to him prior to the incident and about 39 days after his abduction, he got freedom

and reached Police Station Karahaiya. He deposed in para 7 that after his release, no test identification parade was conducted during investigation

regarding identification of abductors.

Contrary to prosecution's case, Anant Singh (PW-7) deposed in cross-examination (para 9) that appellant Jagram is resident of his village

Karahaiya, whereas according to prosecution's case and arrest memo (Ex.P/7), Jagram is the resident of village Nainagir and Jagram and Dharo were

arrested from village Nainagir on different dates i.e., 29.6.2002 and 17.8.2002 respectively. Anant Singh admitted the suggestion given by defence

counsel that deceased appellant Dharo is brother-in-law (Jija) of present appellant Jagram, though he denied the suggestion given by defence counsel

that appellant Jagram's land is adjacent to his land and he also denied the suggestion given by the defence counsel that prior to the incident he was

having

land dispute with appellants, but from Anant Singh's (PW-7) evidence, the evidence of Feran Singh Kushwaha (DW-1) is corroborated on the point

that appellant Jagram is also a resident of village Karahaiya.

Abductee Anant Singh's evidence is highly deviated from his police statement (Ex.D-1) recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC on the point as to

whether names of Jagram and Dharo were disclosed by him in his police statement or not ? His police statement is containing the names of abductors

including Jagram and Dharo, but surprisingly Anant Singh (PW-7) deposed in his examination-in-chief (para 6) that he had not disclosed the names of

Jagram, Sarnam and Dharo in his police statement because of threat given by the accused persons and for the first time he was disclosing the names

of Jagram, Sarnam and Dharo among his abductors before the trial Court on deposition on the date of recording of his evidence, i.e., 6.8.2003. Anant

Singh also deposed that he has not disclosed names of appellants to his father.

It would be significant to mention here that in the light of Kishan vs. State of M.P. (1995 JLJ 353), it is clear that the above-mentioned deviated

evidence given by abductee from his case diary statement was not challenged by the prosecution at the time of recording of his evidence. Therefore,

his unchallenged testimony by the prosecution is binding on the prosecution, which made prosecution case doubtful in relation to appellant.

In cross-examination (para 13), Anant Singh (PW-7) deposed that he was intimated by his family members later on, that due to payment of

ransom money he was freed by the abductors, but in same breath he deposed that he did not know as to how and why he was freed. In next sentence

he deposed that it was not happened that when dacoits were sleeping then he ran away from their custody. In same para he deposed that he intimated

to police officials that when dacoits were sleeping then he silently ran away after making some pretext and he did not disclose to police official

regarding payment of ransom money because at that time facts were not known to him regarding payment of ransom money, but in next breath he

deposed that he gave false statement to investigating officer that when dacoits were sleeping then he silently ran away from their custody. Therefore,

it is clear that on the point as to how he got freedom, his total evidence is full of self-contradictory facts and is contrary to his police statement.

Anant Singh (PW-7) deposed in para 12 that when he was in custody of abductors then his father [Nattha Ram (PW-2)] came to meet him, but at

that time he has not disclosed the names of his abductors to his father. In para 13, he clearly deposed that his brother-in-law (Jija) Kamal Singh (PW-

15) had not come to meet him during his abduction period, whereas according to his police statement (Ex.D/1), when he was under custody of the

abductors, then his family members Kamal Singh and his father Nattha Ram came to meet him in jungle and at that time he had disclosed all facts

including all the names of abductors to both of them. On this point, the evidence of Nattha Ram (PW-2) is not corroborative of the evidence of his son

and similarly Kamal Singh (PW-15) has also not supported the prosecution version. The above-mentioned contradictions and inconsistencies could not

be termed as trivial or minor contradictions or inconsistencies.

Anant Singh (PW-7) reiterated in his evidence (para 6) that after he got freedom, then he stayed at Police Station Karahaiya for three days but

during this period he has not disclosed the names of accused persons to any police officer and similarly he further deposed in same para that in the

village and at home also he had not disclosed the names of Jagram, Dharo and Sarnam to anyone. It is clear that on material point regarding meeting

with abducted son, Nattha Ram (PW-2) has not supported the evidence of his abductee son. In para 15, Anant Singh (PW-7) clearly deposed that his

police statement was recorded on the same day when he was recovered by the police and in same para he admitted the suggestion given by the

defence counsel that in his police statement he has not disclosed the names of Jagram, Dharo and Sarnam to the police.

From the above-mentioned detailed discussion, it is clear that the evidence of abductee Anant Singh (PW-7) is suffering from intrinsic infirmity and

weakness and is even not corroborated by evidence of his close relatives father Nattha Ram (PW-2), brother-in-law Kamal Singh (PW-15) and

cousin brother complainant Atar Singh (PW-1). As observed earlier, his evidence and evidence of other family members is silent on the point of

payment of ransom money to the abductors and the story regarding mode of his escape from the custody of the abductors/dacoits appears to be totally

unbelievable and unnatural. Most important deviation in his evidence is regarding disclosure of names of alleged three abductors Jagram, Dharo and

Sarnam in his case diary statement.

Anant Singh (PW-7) in his cross-examination (para 14) clearly deposed that 'A' to 'A' marked portion of his police statement (Ex.D/1) was not

stated by him to Investigating Officer, whereas the Investigating Officer P.L. Dohre (PW-11), who recorded his police statement (Ex.D/1) deposed in

his evidence (para 1) that on 24.4.2002 he recorded Anant Singh's police statement, as it was stated by him and nothing was added or reduced by him

voluntarily. According to 'A' to 'A' marked portion of abductee's police statement (Ex.D/1) after his abduction in the above-mentioned intervening

night, in next morning at 5=00 am in jungle his abductors and he himself cooked food and at that time his abductors were mutually talking, wherein

they were using each other's name, because of that names of his abductors as Gopal Gadariya, Pratap Gadariya, Sarnam Adiwasi, Badam Adiwasi,

Jagram Adiwasi and Dharo Adiwasi came to his knowledge.

It is clear that Anant Singh's evidence is materially and substantially deviated from his case diary statement and it is clear that he has introduced

much falsehood in his evidence given before the Court, in such proved facts and circumstances it was totally unsafe to rely on his evidence regarding

identification of present appellant Jagram as one of his abductors, who is resident of same village according to his evidence and Feran Singh's (DW-1)

evidence. Though Anant Singh (PW-7) clearly deposed in para 7 that tried co-accused Kumher Singh, who is undisputedly resident of village

Karahaiya was not included in his abductors, whereas in his police statement he disclosed the fact that on the date of incident just after his

encirclement by the abductors on scene of occurrence when he saw towards floor-mill then he marked that his village's Kumher Singh Baghele was

concealing his presence at the scene of occurrence. According to the prosecution's case alleged eye-witness Ghansundar (PW-3) also saw that prior

to the abduction of Anant Singh, Kumher Singh was taling with the abductors, some of whom were carrying guns. Though Ghansundar (PW-3) has

not supported the prosecution's case and he was declared hostile, but the intrinsic weakness or infirmity regarding Kumher Singh's involvement in the

crime also makes Anant Singh's (PW-7) evidence unworthy of credence in relation to present appellant Jagram.

In view of the total evidence of Anant Singh, the possibility of present appellant's false implication due to land dispute could not be ruled out in

reference to the positive evidence given by defence witness Feran Singh Kushwaha (DW-1) that Government has granted patta of agricultural land to

Puniyabai, mother of Jagram and Anant Singh had quarrelled with Jagram at several occasions, wherein he had intervened.

We are of the considered view that the trial Court totally overlooked all these prima facie appearing substantial contradictions and inconsistencies

between the evidence of Anant Singh (PW-7) and his police statement (Ex.D/1) and had erred in convicting and sentencing the present appellant-

Jagram. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant is worthy of acceptance.

Consequently, the appeal filed by present appellant Jagram is allowed and his above-mentioned conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial

Court are set aside and Jagram is acquitted from the charge of Section 364-A of the IPC read with Section 13 of MPDVPK Act. Presently appellant-

Jagram is serving jail sentence awarded by the trial Court in Central Jail, Gwalior. Relating Jail Superintendent be informed that appellant-Jagram be

released forthwith in relation to the case in connection with this criminal appeal, if not required in any other case. With a copy of this judgment, record

of the trial Court be sent back immediately.