Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kailash vs State Of M.P. on 17 August, 2021
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADSH
GWALIOR BENCH
DIVISION BENCH
G.S. Ahluwalia & Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava J.J.
Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008
Suresh Vs. State of M.P.
Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008
Bhaggu Dheemer & Anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008
Kailash & Anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Shri S.K. Tiwari, Counsel for Appellant in Cr.A. No.463 of 2008,
through video conferencing.
Shri Anoop Nigam (Legal Aid ) for Appellant No.1 and Shri R.K.S.
Kushwaha for Appellant No.2 in Cr.A. No.466 of 2008.
Shri Dharmendra Rishishwar, Counsel for Appellants in Cr.A. No.482
of 2008.
Shri C.P. Singh, Counsel for the State
Date of Hearing : 13-8-2021
Date of Judgment : 17-Aug-2021
Approved for reporting : Yes
Judgment
17-Aug-2021
Per G.S. Ahluwalia J.
1.
By this Common Judgment, Cr.A. No.s 463/2008, 466/2008
and 482/2008 shall be decided.
2. All the three Criminal Appeals have been filed against the
judgment and sentence dated 26-4-2008 passed by Special Judge,
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
Datia in Special Sessions Trial No.58/2005 by which the appellants
have been convicted and sentenced for the following offences :
Appellants Conviction under Sentence
Section
All Appellants 364-A IPC read with Life Imprisonment and
Section 13 of fine of Rs.10,000/- in
M.P.D.V.P.K. Act default 2 years R.I.
All Appellants 346 of IPC 1 year R.I.
(All sentences to run
concurrently)
3. According to prosecution story, on 22-7-2005 at about 23:30,
the complainant Manohar Singh, lodged a missing person report that
at about 7 P.M., his elder brother Ram Prakash Rajput had gone to see
his cattle. At about 19:30, the cattle came back to the house, but his
elder brother did not return. He tried to search for him, but could not
get his whereabouts.
4. Although, the police had received the gum insaan report on 22-
7-2005, but the F.I.R. was registered on 9-8-2005 at 12:30.
5. Thereafter, the abductee Ram Prakash Rajput, returned back on
his own. The police after recording statements of witnesses, arrested
the appellants and after completing the investigation, filed the charge
sheet against the appellants, namely, Bhaggu, Kailash, Ramcharan
and Suresh for offence under Section 364-A/34 of IPC and under
Section 11,13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act and supplementary charge-sheet
was filed against appellant-Rajesh alias Babba for offence under
Section 364-A/34 of IPC, under Section 11, 13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
and under Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act.
6. The Trial Court by order dated 28-11-2006, framed charges
under Sections 364-A of IPC read with 13 of M.P.D.V.P.K, Act and
under Section 346 of IPC against appellants Bhaggu, Kailash,
Ramcharan, Suresh and by order dated 15/12/2006 against appellant
Rajesh alias Babba.
7. The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.
8. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined Ram
Prakash (P.W.1), Manohar Singh (P.W.2), Om Prakash (P.W.3), Dr.
M.M. Shakya (P.W.4) and Raghvendra Singh (P.W.5).
9. The appellants did not examine any witness in their defence.
10. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment and sentence,
convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences mentioned
above.
11. Challenging the judgment and sentence passed by the Court
below, it is submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated.
There is nothing on record that any ransom was demanded or it was
paid. Even the prosecution has failed to prove abduction for demand
of ransom.
12. Per contra, the Counsel for the State has supported the findings
recorded by the Court below.
13. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
14. Ram Prakash (P.W.1) has stated that on 22-7-2005 at about
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
7:30 P.M., he was going towards Bhitari Har (fHkVkjh gkj) for walking
and on the way he saw his cattle. Therefore, he was coming back
along with his cattle. He met with three persons. One was Rajesh
Brar, another was Nandu and the third was unknown. They stopped
this witness and Rajesh enquired as to whether he has any relative in
Imaliya or not and when it was accepted by this witness by saying
that his sister is married to Meharban Secretary, then he was stopped
by them for smoking purposes. Thereafter, Babba Brar caught hold of
his hand, whereas Nandu caught hold of his another hand, and third
person pointed his gun towards him and took him towards Chhan Ke
haar (Nku ds gkj). After crossing 1-2 fields, the hands of this witness
were tied. Thereafter, they took towards village Kui. Thereafter, he
was taken to Ratangarh forest area, where he was kept in captivity for
13 days and from thereafter, they shifted him to another place, where
he was kept in captivity for 8 days. They demanded Rs.10 lakh for
his release. On one day, when the appellants were sleeping, he ran
away. While talking to each other, the appellants were calling them
by name Kailash, Chandu, Ramcharan, Suresh, Rajesh Babba.
Ramcharan had brought food for them and he had accompanied the
appellants as a guide. The appellants were identified by this witness
in the dock.
15. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that Kailash
(Appellant no.1 in Cr.A. No.482/2008) was not known to him. While
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
giving statements to the police, he had disclosed the descriptions of
all the accused persons. However, could not give an explanation as to
why the description of the accused persons has not been mentioned in
his police statement. He accepted that when he had gone in search of
his cattle, it was already dark and he was not able to see the road. He
was taken to Ratangarh Forest Area in the night. However, denied
that the accused persons used to keep him in Ratangarh Forest Area
by keeping his hand tied. He further stated that Nandu and Rajesh
used to demand Ransom. He admitted that when he was being taken
to forest area, he had seen a police vehicle at a distance of 200 steps,
however, he did not try to invite the attention of police by raising
alarm. However, he clarified that he did not do so, because the
accused persons, might have killed him, as one person had kept on
gun pointed towards him. However, he could not explain as to why
this fact is not mentioned in his police statement, Ex.D.1. He further
stated that when they reached near Sindh River, he was blind folded
therefore, he was not able to see anything. But clarified that some
times, the accused persons used to open the blindfold. He further
admitted that he had identified the accused persons in the police
station. After Kailash was arrested, he was got identified in the police
station. He was called for identification after 2 days of his escape
from the captivity of the accused persons. However, he denied that
the police had tutored him to identify the accused persons in Court
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
and to disclose their names. He further admitted that he came to know
about the names of the appellants, only when they were got identified
from him in the police station. He denied that there is a dispute
between Rajesh Babba and Meharban Singh (brother-in-law of this
witness), therefore, he has been falsely implicated. He further stated
that after running away from the captivity of the accused persons, he
directly came to the house of his brother-in-law and from there, he
went to Police Station Tharet. He further admitted that there is a
police station in Bhaguvapura, but he did not inform them. He further
admitted that on the information given by Police Station Tharet, the
police from Police Station Godan had also reached there. He further
stated that he had informed the police that he was beaten by the
accused persons, but could not explain as to why said fact is not
mentioned in his police statement, Ex.D.1. He further admitted that it
is true that he was always kept by the accused persons at a distance of
25-30 ft.s from them and he was not able to hear the conversation of
the accused persons. He further admitted that the accused persons
used to call them by their code names, and they never called each
other by their names. He further admitted that he had not disclosed in
the police statement, that the accused persons used to call each other
by the name Kailash, Nandu, Ramcharan, Suresh and Kailash Babba.
He further admitted that he has disclosed the above mentioned names
for the first time in the Court. He further admitted that when he had
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
given his police statement, he was not aware of the names of the
accused persons.
16. Manohar Singh (P.W.2) has stated that his brother Ramprakash
had gone to see his cattle. Although the buffaloes came back but
Ramprakash did not return. He tried to search for Ramprakash and
when could not trace out his whereabouts, then he lodged a missing
person report. When he was searching for Ramprakash, then late in
the night, he came to know that his brother has been abducted by
Nandu Kadera, Rajesh Babba and others for ransom. His relative
Karan Singh Rajput had talked with the accused persons in relation to
ransom. The accused persons had said that they would release
Ramprakash after taking ransom of Rs.1 lacs. He further stated that
confessional statement of Rajesh @ Babba, Ex. P.1 was recorded by
the police in his presence and one .12 bore gun was seized and photo
copy of the seizure memo has been filed in the case.
17. In cross-examination, this witness claimed that he had
informed the police that the accused persons have demanded Rs.1
lakh (One Lakh) from Karan Singh, but could not explain as to why,
said fact is not mentioned in his police statement, Ex.D.2. He further
stated that on the next day of abduction, he was told by Man Singh
Rajput, Bharat Singh Rajput, Ram Singh Rajput and others that his
brother has been abducted by Nandu and Rajesh. On 23-7-2005, he
had informed Kamta Prasad Sharma, Incharge Police outpost that his
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
brother has been abducted by Nandu and Rajesh. After 10 days, his
relative Karan Singh Rajput, had informed that the accused persons
are demanding Rs.1 Lakh (One Lakh). However, Karan Singh did not
disclose him that on what date and at which place, he had met with
Nandu and Rajesh. He denied that any criminal case is pending
against the father of Meharban for assaulting father of Rajesh. He
further admitted that the incident of abduction was not seen by any
villager. He further claimed that he had received a letter demanding
ransom, but did not give it to the police. He further claimed he could
not decide as to whether he should give the said letter to police or
not.
18. Omprakash (P.W.3) has stated that he had come to know that
Ram Prakash has been abducted for demand of Ransom. In cross-
examination, he claimed that some outsider had given above
information, but could not disclose the name and identity of said
outsider. He further claimed that he had informed the police that an
amount of Rs.1 lakh (One Lakh) has been demanded, but could not
explain as to why such fact is not mentioned in his police statement.
He further stated that after 7-8 days of abduction, he had come to
know that Ramprakash has been abducted by Babba and had also
informed the family members of Ramprakash. He further admitted
that there is an enmity between him and Babba, however, denied that
on account of enmity, he has falsely implicated him.
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
19. Dr. M.M. Shakya (P.W.4) has stated that he had examined
Ramprakash on 15-8-2005 and had found following injuries on his
body :
(i) One contusion with swelling and septic boil over right ankle.
(ii) Contusion with inflammation along with tennis elbow.
(iii) There is no any injury seen around the anal pore or inner side
except Haemorrhoide moles present.
20. Raghvendra Singh (P.W. 5) has investigated the matter. He has
stated that gum insaan report was lodged by Manohar Singh on 22-7-
2005 which was recorded in Rojnamcha No.4/05, Ex. P.3. On 9-8-
2005, he had recorded the F.I.R., Ex.P.4 for offence under Sections
364-A of IPC and Sections 11,13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act. During the
course of investigation, he recorded the statements of Omprakash,
Manohar Singh on 10-8-2005 and on 11-8-2005, he recorded the
statements of Kamal Singh and Uttam Singh. On 14-8-2005, the
recovery panchnama of abductee, Ex.P.5 was prepared. The
statements of Ramprakash were recorded. Spot map, Ex. P.6 was
prepared. On 16-8-2005, the Appellants Bhaggu Dheemer and
Kailash Dheemer were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8.
On 10-2-2006, he had arrested Rajesh Brar, vide arrest memo Ex.P.9.
The confessional statement of Rajesh Brar, Ex. P.1 was recorded and
on the basis of confessional statement, gun was seized in another
offence, i.e., crime no.20/2005 registered in police station Godan.
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
21. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that names of
Nandu and Babba were mentioned in the F.I.R., on the information
given by Manohar Singh. He further admitted that F.I.R. was lodged
on 9-8-2005, whereas the statement of Manohar Singh was recorded
on 10-8-2005. However, he explained that the names were mentioned
on the basis of statement of Manohar Singh given in gum insaan
enquiry. However, could not specify the names of those witnesses,
whose statements were recorded in missing person enquiry. He
further admitted that he has not filed the copies of the statements of
those witnesses, who had informed about the incident. He further
admitted that he cannot say that on what basis he had recorded the
names of the accused persons in the F.I.R., but again clarified that he
had mentioned on the basis of statement of Manohar Singh. He
further admitted that Manohar Singh had not disclosed the source of
information and had said that he would disclose the source of
information in the Court only. He admitted that brother-in-law of
abductee Ramprakash is a Secretary, Gram Panhayat Imaliya but
expressed his ignorance about any enmity between Meharban Singh
and Babba. He further admitted that he did not held Test
Identification Parade of the appellants. He further stated that it is
incorrect to say that abductee initially went to Police Station Tharet
and then information was given by Police Station Tharet. He denied
that the abductee was not recovered from Bhaguvapura. He further
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
stated that he had not recorded the statement of abductee Ramprakash
in Bhaguvapura. He further admitted that by mistake he could not
mention in the police statement of Ramprakash that he was also
beaten by the accused persons. However, clarified that he had got the
abductee medically examined. He further stated that Ramprakash had
not informed him that the accused persons used to call them by their
code names. He further admitted that Manohar Singh had not
disclosed to him, that a demand of ransom of Rs.1 lakh (one lakh) has
been made from his relative. He further admitted that no letter of
ransom was given to him. He admitted that he had shown the accused
persons in police station and they were identified by the witnesses.
22. Upon appreciation of evidence, the following are the
discrepancies in the prosecution case :
(i) Ramprakash (P.W.1) has stated that ransom of Rs.10 Lakh (Ten
Lakh) was demanded, whereas Manohar Singh (P.W.2) and
Raghvendra Singh (P.W. 5) say that ransom of Rs.One lakh was
demanded.
(ii) Ramprakash (P.W.1) has not stated that how and in what
manner, the demand of Rs.10 lakh was communicated to his family
members.
(iii) Manohar Singh (P.W.2) has stated that his relative Karan Singh
Rajput had a talk with appellants with regard to demand of Rs.1
Lakh, but Karan Singh Rajput was not examined by the prosecution.
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
(iv) Manohar Singh (P.W.2) has stated that Karan Singh Rajput had
not disclosed that on what date and at which place he had a talk with
Nandu and Rajesh with regard to ransom.
(v) None of the witnesses has stated that any ransom amount was
paid.
(vi) Manohar Singh (P.W.2) has stated that he had received a letter
of ransom but admitted that he did not hand it over to the police.
Said letter was not filed in the Trial also.
(vii) Manohar Singh (P.W.2) has not clarified that who had given
him the letter of ransom.
(viii) Ramprakash (P.W.1) has admitted that the accused persons
used to keep him 25-30 feets away from them and was not able to
hear their conversations.
(ix) Ramprakash (P.W.1) has given self contradictory evidence with
regard to identity of appellants. In examination-in-chief, it is stated
by him that the accused persons were calling each other by their
names, but in para 18 of the cross-examination, this witness has
stated that the accused persons were calling them by their code
words.
(x) It is submitted by the Counsel for the State that although a part
of cross-examination of this witness was done on the same day on
which his examination-in-chief was recorded, but cross-examination
which is in para 18 and 19 was done on a subsequent date, therefore,
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
it appears that this witness might have been won over, and in the light
of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Khujji
Vs. State of M.P., reported in (1991) 3 SCC 627, paras 18 and 19
may be ignored.
Considered the submission made by the Counsel for the State.
The Supreme Court in the case of Khujji (Supra) has held as
under :
7......On the basis of this statement Mr Lalit submitted that
the evidence regarding the identity of the appellant is
rendered highly doubtful and it would be hazardous to
convict the appellant solely on the basis of identification by
such a wavering witness. The High Court came to the
conclusion and, in our opinion rightly, that during the one
month period that elapsed since the recording of his
examination-in-chief something transpired which made him
shift his evidence on the question of identity to help the
appellant. We are satisfied on a reading of his entire
evidence that his statement in cross-examination on the
question of identity of the appellant and his companion is a
clear attempt to wriggle out of what he had stated earlier in
his examination-in-chief.
On the face of the argument advanced by the Counsel for the
State, it appeared to be very attractive, but on deeper scrutiny, it is
found to be misconceived and is liable to be rejected for the reason
that examination-in-chief of this witness was recorded on 15-6-2007
and he was partially cross-examined on the very same day and in the
said cross-examination, he had admitted that he came to know about
the names of the appellants, only after the appellants were shown in
the police station. It appears that thereafter, since one lawyer was
unwell, therefore, the cross-examination was deferred and this
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
witness was further cross-examined on 24-7-2007. If para 18 (cross-
examined on 24-7-2007) is read along with para 13 (cross-examined
on 15-6-2007), then it is clear that this witness had already admitted
that he was not aware of the names of the appellants before they were
shown in the police station. Therefore, it cannot be said that this
witness had taken complete somersault on 24-7-2007. Thus, in the
light of cross-examination already done on 15-6-2007, the cross-
examination done on 24-7-2007, can be relied upon and it cannot be
said that whatever was stated by this witness on 24-7-2007 was an
attempt to wriggle out what was stated by him on 15-6-2007.
(xi) Undisputedly, no Test Identification Parade was conducted by
the Police.
It is a trite law that substantive piece of evidence is Dock
Identification.
Test Identification Parade is conducted by police, to ascertain
as to whether the investigation is moving in right direction or not.
The Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) reported in (2017) 6 SCC 1 has held as under :
142. Criticising the TIP, it is urged by the learned counsel
for the appellants and Mr Hegde, learned Amicus Curiae,
that refusal to participate may be considered as
circumstance but it cannot by itself lead to an inference of
guilt. It is also argued that there is material on record to
show that the informant had the opportunity to see the
accused persons after they were arrested. It is necessary to
state here that TIP does not constitute substantive evidence.
It has been held in Matru v. State of U.P. that identification
test is primarily meant for the purpose of helping the
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
investigating agency with an assurance that their progress
with the investigation of an offence is proceeding on the
right lines.
143. In Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain, it has been
observed that the identification can only be used as
corroborative of the statement in court.
144. In Malkhansingh v. State of M.P., it has been held thus:
(SCC pp. 751-52, para 7)
"7. ... The identification parades belong to the stage of
investigation, and there is no provision in the Code of
Criminal Procedure which obliges the investigating
agency to hold, or confers a right upon the accused to
claim a test identification parade. They do not
constitute substantive evidence and these parades are
essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Failure to hold a test
identification parade would not make inadmissible the
evidence of identification in court. The weight to be
attached to such identification should be a matter for
the courts of fact. ..."
And again: (SCC p. 755, para 16)
"16. It is well settled that the substantive evidence is
the evidence of identification in court and the test
identification parade provides corroboration to the
identification of the witness in court, if required.
However, what weight must be attached to the
evidence of identification in court, which is not
preceded by a test identification parade, is a matter for
the courts of fact to examine. ..."
145. In this context, reference to a passage from
Visveswaran v. State would be apt. It is as follows: (SCC p.
78, para 11)
"11. ... The identification of the accused either in test
identification parade or in Court is not a sine qua non
in every case if from the circumstances the guilt is
otherwise established. Many a time, crimes are
committed under the cover of darkness when none is
able to identify the accused. The commission of a
crime can be proved also by circumstantial evidence.
..."
146. In Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court,
after referring to Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P.,
Harbajan Singh v. State of J&K and Malkhansingh, came to
hold that the proposition of law is quite clear that even if
there is no previous TIP, the court may appreciate the dock
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
identification as being above board and more than
conclusive.
Thus, it is clear that Dock Identification is the substantive
piece of evidence, and even in absence of Test Identification Parade,
it can be relied upon. However, the pivotal question is that in view of
admission made by Ramprakash (P.W.1) that the appellants were
shown to him in the police station, whether the Dock Identification
can be relied upon or not?
The Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Malik Vs.
State of Haryana reported in (2011) 7 SCC 130 has held as under :
26. Admittedly, no identification parade was conducted
to identify the appellant as the description given by the
prosecutrix about the details did not match with his
appearance. All through, she has been describing the
appellant as gitta (short-statured) man with beard, whereas
a statement before the Bench has been made by the learned
counsel for the appellant, after verification from the
appellant's wife, that he is 5' 6? tall. This fact has been
independently corroborated by the jailor's report on this
specific query. Even though a man having a height of 5' 6?
cannot be said to be tall but by no stretch of imagination,
could he be called a gitta (short-statured) man. Admittedly,
she was already shown the appellant and the other accused
at the police station, after they were arrested. Thus, her
dock identification in the court had become meaningless.
Thus, it is held that since, the appellants/accused persons were
already shown to the witnesses in the police station, therefore, it is
held that the Dock Identification of the appellants, cannot be relied
upon.
(xii) The investigating officer has not prepared the spot map of the
place where Ramprakash (P.W.1) was kept in captivity.
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
(xiii) Ramprakash (P.W.1) has claimed that he had run away from the
captivity of the accused persons on his own, whereas Raghvendra
Singh (P.W.5) has claimed that he had recovered Ramprakash
(P.W.1).
(xiv) Ramprakash (P.W.1) has stated that after escaping from the
captivity of the appellants, he went to Police Station Tharet, who in
its turn informed the police of Police Station Godan, whereas
Raghvendra Singh (PW. 5) has denied that he was ever informed by
Police Station Tharet. On the contrary, he stated that in fact he had
recovered the abductee from Bhaguvapura. Thus, there is a serious
discrepancy as to whether Ramprakash (P.W.1) was recovered by the
police or he had run away from the captivity on his own.
(xv) Further, the most important aspect of the matter is that Missing
Person report was lodged on 22-7-2005. The F.I.R., Ex. P.4 was
registered on 9-8-2005 and without there being any material to show
that Ramprakash (P.W.1) was abducted by Nandu and Rajesh, the
names of Nandu and Rajesh were mentioned in the F.I.R.
(xvi) Manohar Singh (P.W.2) has stated that he was informed by
Man Singh Rajput, Bharat Singh Rajput, Ram Singh Rajput and other
persons, that Ramprakash (P.W.1) has been abducted by Nandu and
Rajesh. However, the police has not examined Man Singh Rajput,
Bharat Singh Rajput and Ram Singh Rajput, but examined one
Omprakash (P.W.3) in this regard. However, Omprakash (P.W.3) has
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
also stated that he was informed by one outsider that Ramprakash
(P.W.1) has been abducted by Babba. He further admitted that he
doesnot know the outsider. Omprakash (P.W.3) has also admitted
that there is an enmity between himself and Babba Karar. Thus, it is
clear that Omprakash (P.W.3) is not reliable witness for the following
reasons:
(a) He claims himself to be a hearsay witness, but could not
disclose the identity of the person, who had informed him about
abduction.
(b) The prosecution has not examined anybody to prove that he
had seen Ramprakash (P.W.1) in the captivity of Nandu, Rajesh and
others and also that Omprakash (P.W.3) was ever informed about
abduction.
(c) Omprakash (P.W.3) has a motive to falsely implicate Babba
(Rajesh) as he himself has admitted that he has an enmity with
Rajesh Babba.
(xvii) Raghvendra Singh (P.W.5) has admitted in para 8 of his cross-
examination, that he was not aware that on what basis, the names of
Nandu and Rajesh were mentioned in the F.I.R., because according to
the prosecution case, Ramprakash (P.W.1) succeeded in running away
from the captivity on 14-8-2005, whereas F.I.R. was registered on 9-
8-2005. However, the explanation given by Raghvendra Singh
(P.W.1) that he was informed by Manohar Singh (P.W.2) in this
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
regard cannot be accepted for the reason, that the prosecution has not
filed a copy of any statement which was allegedly recorded during
missing person enquiry. Further, Raghvendra Singh (P.W.5) has
admitted that Manohar Singh (P.W.2) had not disclosed the source of
information on the ground that he would disclose the same in the
Court only.
(xviii) It is clear that Raghvendra Singh (P.W.5) in connivance with
the prosecution witnesses, Ramprakash (P.W.1) and Manohar Singh
(P.W.2) prepared a false case and without there being any evidence/
material registered false F.I.R. against Nandu, Rajesh and others.
There is nothing on record to show that how Raghvendra Singh
(P.W.5) had recovered Ramprakash (P.W.1), specifically when
Ramprakash (P.W.1) had stated that he had escaped from the
captivity of the accused persons on his own. Raghvendra Singh
(P.W.5) did not conduct Test Identification Parade. On the contrary,
admittedly allowed the witnesses to see the appellants in the police
station. Thus, it is held that the conduct of Raghvendra Singh was not
in accordance with the duties attached to a police personal exercising
its powers under Criminal Procedure Code. He had acted in
connivance with Ramprakash (P.W.1), Manohar Singh (P.W.2) and
Omprakash (P.W.3).
23. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove that
any ransom was ever demanded by the appellants. The prosecution
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
has failed to prove, that the appellants had abducted Ramprakash
(P.W.1). In fact, the prosecution has failed to prove that Ramprakash
(P.W.1) was ever abducted. There is no evidence to show that any
ransom was demanded. It is not the case of the prosecution that any
ransom amount was paid. From the evidence of Omprakash (P.W.3),
it is clear that he had a strong motive to falsely implicate Rajesh.
Further, the appellants had also taken a stand by suggesting to
Ramprakash (P.W.1) and Manohar Singh (P.W.2) that Nandu and
Rajesh have been falsely implicated on account of enmity.
24. Accordingly, it is held that the prosecution has miserably failed
to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. On the
contrary, there is an ample material on record to suggest that the
appellants were falsely implicated by the witnesses, with the help of
Raghvendra Singh (P.W.5) with a sole intention to grind their axe.
Therefore, all the Appellants are acquitted of charges under Section
364-A of IPC read with Section 13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act and under
Section 346 of IPC.
25. Ex consequenti, the judgment and sentence dated 26-4-2008
passed by Special Judge, Datia in Special Sessions Trial No.58/2005
is hereby Set aside.
26. The appellant Rajesh @ Babba (Criminal Appeal No.466 of
2008) is in jail. He be released immediately, if not warranted in any
other case.
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
27. All other appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are
discharged. They are no more required to mark their presence before
the Registry of this Court.
28. Before parting with this judgment, this Court is of the
considered opinion, that this Court would be failing in discharging
its Constitutional duties, if the disturbing facts are not taken note of.
29. The Appellant Suresh (Cr.A. No.463 of 2008) was arrested on
20-12-2005 and was released on bail by order dated 26-5-2017, i.e.,
after 11 years and 9 months (Approximately) of actual custody.
Similarly, Appellant Bhaggu Dheemer (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008) was
arrested on 16-8-2005 and was released on bail by order dated 9-11-
2016 i.e., after 11 years and 3 months (Approximately) of actual
custody. Appellant Rajesh @ Babba (Cr.A. No.466 of 2008) was
arrested on 10-2-2006 and has never been released on bail either
during trial nor in this appeal. Appellant Kailash (Cr.A. No.482 of
2008), was arrested on 16-8-2005 and was released on bail by order
dated 31-7-2017 i.e., after 11 years and 11 months (Approximately)
of actual custody and Ramcharan (Cr.A. No.482/2008) was arrested
on 26-10-2005 and was released by order dated 31-7-2017 i.e., after
11 years and 9 months (Approximately) of actual custody.
30. Thus, it is clear that all the appellants have spent more than 11
years in actual custody on account of their false implications. Now
the question for consideration is as to whether their honorable
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
acquittal is sufficient or their illegal custody on account of false
evidence is liable to be compensated?
31. There is no provision in Cr.P.C. for grant of compensation to
an accused, who was apparently implicated falsely due to ill designs
of the witnesses. However, Article 21 of the Constitution of India
provides as under :
21. Protection of life and personal liberty.--No person
shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law.
32. The Supreme Court in exercise of its power under Article 142
of Constitution of India has awarded compensation to the accused
persons who were falsely implicated and had suffered jail sentence on
account of their false implication. In the case of Ankush Maruti
Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 15 SCC 470
the Supreme Court has held as under :
15.....Their family members have also suffered. Therefore,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in exercise of
our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,
we direct the State of Maharashtra to pay a sum of Rs
5,00,000 to each of the accused by way of compensation, to
be deposited by the State with the learned Sessions Court
within a period of four weeks from today and on such
deposit, the same be paid to the accused concerned on
proper identification. The learned Sessions Court is directed
to see that the said amount shall be used for their
rehabilitation. At the cost of the repetition, it is observed
that the aforesaid compensation is awarded to the accused
and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and
in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India.
33. In case of violation of Fundamental Rights, the Constitutional
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
Courts can award monetary compensation. The Supreme Court in the
case of State of Gujarat v. Islamic Relief Committee of Gujarat,
reported in (2018) 13 SCC 687 has held as under :
28. In Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd., the Court was
considering whether the High Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
could have directed payment of interest by way of
compensation. The issue before the Court pertained to an
order by which the Division Bench of the Calcutta High
Court directed the appellant before this Court to refund the
amount advanced to it with 12% p.a. interest to the
respondents. The factual matrix in the said case was that the
Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of
Education, Government of India floated a scheme purported
to be for securing equitable distribution of white printing
paper. The said scheme had certain relevant features.
Pursuant to the scheme, the respondents allegedly placed
orders for supply of white paper upon the appellant therein
which the appellant Corporation could not supply. The
learned Single Judge by ex parte order had directed the
Corporation to take immediate steps for release of white
concessional paper to the respondents wherefor allegedly
the advance money had already been accepted by them. The
application for recall was dismissed. In appeal, the Division
Bench noted the contention of the appellant and took into
account that the appellant had already refunded the large
amount to the allottees without any interest subsequent to
the discontinuation of the scheme. However, it held that by
such act it could not absolve the Corporation from the
liability to compensate the respondents in cash if not in
kind in consideration of their default and accordingly it
directed for payment of interest at 12% p.a. The three-Judge
Bench observed that the scheme in question did not have
the force of law and even if it did, a writ of mandamus
could not have been issued by directing grant of
compensation. In that context, the Court ruled: (SCC p.
216, para 8)
"8. ... Public law remedy for the purpose of grant of
compensation can be resorted to only when the
fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 of the
Constitution is violated and not otherwise. It is not
every violation of the provisions of the Constitution or
a statute which would enable the court to direct grant
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
of compensation. The power of the court of judicial
review to grant compensation in public law remedy is
limited. The instant case is not one which would attract
invocation of the said rule. It is not the case of the
respondents herein that by reason of acts of
commission and omission on the part of the appellant
herein the fundamental right of the respondents under
Article 21 of the Constitution has been violated."
29. On a perusal of the judgment in its entirety, we find the
case hinges on its own facts regarding grant of
compensation. The power of the court of judicial review to
grant compensation in public law is limited. There cannot
be any quarrel about the said proposition of law.
30. In Rabindra Nath Ghosal, the assail was to the order of
the learned Single Judge whereby he had directed the
University of Calcutta to pay to the appellant before him Rs
60,000 as monetary compensation and damages. The
Division Bench overturned the same by holding that in the
facts of the case compensation should have been awarded
but the proper course should have been to leave the parties
to agitate their grievances before the civil court. This Court
referred to the decision in Common Cause and adverted to
the concept of public law remedy and opined: (Rabindra
Nath Ghosal case, SCC p. 483, para 8)
"8. ... A claim in public law for compensation for
contravention of human rights and fundamental
freedoms, the protection of which is guaranteed in the
Constitution is undoubtedly an acknowledged remedy
for protection and enforcement of such right and such
a claim based on strict liability made by resorting to a
constitutional remedy, provided for the enforcement of
fundamental right is distinct from, and in addition to
the remedy in private law for damages for the tort, as
was held by this Court in Nilabati Behera."
And again: (SCC p. 483, para 9)
"9. The courts having the obligation to satisfy the
social aspiration of the citizens have to apply the tool
and grant compensation as damages in public law
proceedings. Consequently when the court moulds the
relief in proceedings under Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of
fundamental rights and grants compensation, it does so
under the public law by way of penalising the
wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong
on the State which has failed in its public duty to
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. But it
would not be correct to assume that every minor
infraction of public duty by every public officer would
commend the court to grant compensation in a petition
under Articles 226 and 32 by applying the principle of
public law proceeding. The court in exercise of
extraordinary power under Articles 226 and 32 of the
Constitution, therefore, would not award damages
against public authorities merely because they have
made some order which turns out to be ultra vires, or
there has been some inaction in the performance of the
duties unless there is malice or conscious abuse.
Before exemplary damages can be awarded it must be
shown that some fundamental right under Article 21
has been infringed by arbitrary or capricious action on
the part of the public functionaries and that the sufferer
was a helpless victim of that act."
The Supreme Court in the case of S. Nambi Narayanan Vs.
Siby Mathews reported in (2018) 10 SCC 804 has held as under :
34. As stated earlier, the entire prosecution initiated by the
State Police was malicious and it has caused tremendous
harassment and immeasurable anguish to the appellant. It is
not a case where the accused is kept under custody and,
eventually, after trial, he is found not guilty. The State
Police was dealing with an extremely sensitive case and
after arresting the appellant and some others, the State, on
its own, transferred the case to the Central Bureau of
Investigation. After comprehensive enquiry, the closure
report was filed. An argument has been advanced by the
learned counsel for the State of Kerala as well as by the
other respondents that the fault should be found with CBI
but not with the State Police, for it had transferred the case
to CBI. The said submission is to be noted only to be
rejected. The criminal law was set in motion without any
basis. It was initiated, if one is allowed to say, on some kind
of fancy or notion. The liberty and dignity of the appellant
which are basic to his human rights were jeopardised as he
was taken into custody and, eventually, despite all the glory
of the past, he was compelled to face cynical abhorrence.
This situation invites the public law remedy for grant of
compensation for violation of the fundamental right
envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution. In such a
situation, it springs to life with immediacy. It is because life
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
commands self-respect and dignity.
35. There has been some argument that there has been no
complaint with regard to custodial torture. When such an
argument is advanced, the concept of torture is viewed from
a narrow perspective. What really matters is what has been
stated in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. The Court in the said
case, while dealing with the aspect of torture, held: (SCC
pp. 424-25, paras 10-12)
"10. "Torture" has not been defined in the Constitution
or in other penal laws. "Torture" of a human being by
another human being is essentially an instrument to
impose the will of the "strong" over the "weak" by
suffering. The word torture today has become
synonymous with the darker side of human
civilisation.
'Torture is a wound in the soul so painful that
sometimes you can almost touch it, but it is also so
intangible that there is no way to heal it. Torture is
anguish squeezing in your chest, cold as ice and heavy
as a stone, paralysing as sleep and dark as the abyss.
Torture is despair and fear and rage and hate. It is a
desire to kill and destroy including yourself.'
-- Adriana P. Bartow
11. No violation of any one of the human rights has
been the subject of so many Conventions and
Declarations as "torture" -- all aiming at total banning
of it in all forms, but in spite of the commitments made
to eliminate torture, the fact remains that torture is
more widespread now than ever before. "Custodial
torture" is a naked violation of human dignity and
degradation which destroys, to a very large extent, the
individual personality. It is a calculated assault on
human dignity and whenever human dignity is
wounded, civilisation takes a step backward -- flag of
humanity must on each such occasion fly half-mast.
12. In all custodial crimes what is of real concern is
not only infliction of body pain but the mental agony
which a person undergoes within the four walls of
police station or lock-up. Whether it is physical assault
or rape in police custody, the extent of trauma, a
person experiences is beyond the purview of law."
36. From the aforesaid, it is quite vivid that emphasis has
been laid on mental agony when a person is confined within
the four walls of a police station or lock-up. There may not
be infliction of physical pain but definitely there is mental
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
torment. In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., the Court
ruled: (SCC pp. 263-64, paras 8-9)
"8. The horizon of human rights is expanding. At the
same time, the crime rate is also increasing. Of late,
this Court has been receiving complaints about
violation of human rights because of indiscriminate
arrests. How are we to strike a balance between the
two?
9. A realistic approach should be made in this
direction. The law of arrest is one of balancing
individual rights, liberties and privileges, on the one
hand, and individual duties, obligations and
responsibilities on the other; of weighing and
balancing the rights, liberties and privileges of the
single individual and those of individuals collectively;
of simply deciding what is wanted and where to put the
weight and the emphasis; of deciding which comes
first -- the criminal or society, the law violator or the
law abider...."
37. In Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry, this Court
reproduced an observation from the decision in D.F.
Marion v. Davis: (SCC pp. 515, para 25)
"25. ... 'The right to the enjoyment of a private
reputation, unassailed by malicious slander is of
ancient origin, and is necessary to human society. A
good reputation is an element of personal security, and
is protected by the Constitution equally with the right
to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property.'"
38. Reputation of an individual is an insegregable facet of
his right to life with dignity. In a different context, a two-
Judge Bench of this Court in Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla
Vishwanath Agrawal has observed: (SCC pp. 307, para 55)
"55. ... reputation which is not only the salt of life, but
also the purest treasure and the most precious perfume
of life. It is extremely delicate and a cherished value
this side of the grave. It is a revenue generator for the
present as well as for the posterity."
39. From the aforesaid analysis, it can be stated with
certitude that the fundamental right of the appellant under
Article 21 has been gravely affected. In this context, we
may refer with profit how this Court had condemned the
excessive use of force by the police. In Delhi Judicial
Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat, it said: (SCC pp. 454-55,
para 39)
"39. ... The main objective of police is to apprehend
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
offenders, to investigate crimes and to prosecute them
before the courts and also to prevent commission of
crime and above all to ensure law and order to protect
the citizens' life and property. The law enjoins the
police to be scrupulously fair to the offender and the
Magistracy is to ensure fair investigation and fair trial
to an offender. The purpose and object of Magistracy
and police are complementary to each other. It is
unfortunate that these objectives have remained
unfulfilled even after 40 years of our Constitution.
Aberrations of police officers and police excesses in
dealing with the law and order situation have been
subject of adverse comments from this Court as well as
from other courts but it has failed to have any
corrective effect on it. The police has power to arrest a
person even without obtaining a warrant of arrest from
a court. The amplitude of this power casts an
obligation on the police ... [and it] must bear in mind,
as held by this Court that if a person is arrested for a
crime, his constitutional and fundamental rights must
not be violated."
40. If the obtaining factual matrix is adjudged on the
aforesaid principles and parameters, there can be no
scintilla of doubt that the appellant, a successful scientist
having national reputation, has been compelled to undergo
immense humiliation. The lackadaisical attitude of the State
Police to arrest anyone and put him in police custody has
made the appellant to suffer the ignominy. The dignity of a
person gets shocked when psycho-pathological treatment is
meted out to him. A human being cries for justice when he
feels that the insensible act has crucified his self-respect.
That warrants grant of compensation under the public law
remedy. We are absolutely conscious that a civil suit has
been filed for grant of compensation. That will not debar
the constitutional court to grant compensation taking
recourse to public law. The Court cannot lose sight of the
wrongful imprisonment, malicious prosecution, the
humiliation and the defamation faced by the appellant.
41. In Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, the three-Judge
Bench, after referring to the earlier decisions, has opined:
(SCC pp. 198-99, para 38)
"38. It is thus now well settled that the award of
compensation against the State is an appropriate and
effective remedy for redress of an established
infringement of a fundamental right under Article 21,
by a public servant. The quantum of compensation
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
will, however, depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. Award of such
compensation (by way of public law remedy) will not
come in the way of the aggrieved person claiming
additional compensation in a civil court, in the
enforcement of the private law remedy in tort, nor
come in the way of the criminal court ordering
compensation under Section 357 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure."
42. In Hardeep Singh v. State of M.P., the Court was dealing
with the issue of delayed trial and the humiliation faced by
the appellant therein. A Division Bench of the High Court in
intra-court appeal had granted compensation of Rs 70,000.
This Court, while dealing with the quantum of
compensation, highlighted the suffering and humiliation
caused to the appellant and enhanced the compensation.
34. This Court has already come to a conclusion that in fact, the
appellants were falsely and maliciously framed in connivance with
Raghvendra Singh (P.W.5). Thus, the State is responsible for the acts
of Raghvendra Singh (P.W.5), i.e., investigating officer.
35. Accordingly, the State Govt. is directed to pay Rs.3 lakh to
each of the appellant by way of compensation on account of violation
of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of
Constitution of India. The compensation amount shall be paid within
a period of one month from today and the State shall file the receipt
of payment of compensation amount before the Principal Registrar of
this Court within a period of 45 days from today. The State Govt.
shall be free to recover the compensation amount from the
salary/pension of Raghvendra Singh (P.W.5). The State may also
recover from Ramprakash (P.W.1) and Manohar Singh (P.W.2) as
arrears of land revenue.
Suresh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 463 of 2008)
Bhaggu Dheemer & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 466 of 2008)
Kailash & anr. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 482 of 2008)
36. Further, the appellants shall be free to institute civil suit
against Ramprakash (P.W.1), Manohar Singh (P.W.2) and Raghvendra
Singh (P.W.5) for further compensation. If the civil suit is filed, then
the compensation awarded by this Court shall not be liable to be
adjusted.
37. With aforesaid observations, the Cr.A. No.s 463 of 2008, 466
of 2008 and 482 of 2008 are Allowed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) (Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
Judge Judge
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2021.08.18 10:45:54 +05'30'
