Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivpratap Alias Gudiram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 January, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 11121 of 2019
(SHIVPRATAP ALIAS GUDIRAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 31-01-2023
Shri Rajmani Bansal - Advocate for appellant.
Smt. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Shri Anshu Gupta - Advocate for complainant.
This appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC is directed against the
judgment dated 28.11.2019 whereunder the appellant along with other accused
persons stands convicted for offence under Sections 364, 302, 201 of IPC and
under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years RI
with fine of Rs.5,000/-, Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.7,000/-, 3 years RI
with fine of Rs.2,000/- and 3 years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively with
default stipulation in SC DOCT No.300007/2016 passed by Special Judge
(MPDVPK Act), Sheopur.
Now at a distance of time of more than 4 years from the date of filing of
appeal, appellant Shivpratap @ Gudiram on 12.09.2022 filed instant application
I.A. No.14500/2022 seeking indulgence in the matter of enquiry with regard to
the juvenality of the appellant on the strength of photocopies of Pragati Patra
of Class-V allegedly of the year 2010-2011 issued by the Principal of Shyam
Sundar Memorial Private School Middle Primary, Orangabad, Jhijhak, Kanpur
Dehat (U.P.) and Pragati Patra of Class-VIII allegedly of the year 2013-2014
issued by the Principal of Babu Dashrath Singh Inter College, Orangabad,
Kanpur, Dehat (U.P.). It is alleged that date of birth of the appellant is recorded
as 28.05.1999.
Under the order of this Court dated 06.01.2023, enquiry appears to have
been conducted by the respondent/State and reply has been submitted. In para
3 of the reply, it is stated that while Crime Case No.20/2016 was registered for
offence under Sections 364, 365 of IPC and he was arrested under Section 41
of CrPC, at that time, he had declared his age as 27 years. That apart, in para 6,
it is also stated that earlier in the year 2011 in relation to another criminal
antecedents, the appellant was prosecuted in Sessions Trial No.26/2012
whereunder his age was recorded as 20 years. That apart, appellant did not
produce any authentic information, based whereupon his age could be said to
be as alleged in the photocopies of aforesaid Pragati Patra.
Further, Smt. Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri
Anshu Gupta, Advocate for the complainant submit that the appellant has
mentioned his address as Village Rohani, Singpura, Thana Lahar, District
Bhind, Present R/o Behind Shaskiya Colony, Karhal, District Sheopur and
disclosed his age as 27 years in the seizure memo Ex. P/7 and the same is
accordingly recorded. It is submitted that on one hand, the appellant on his own
disclosed himself to be permanent resident of Bhind and temporary resident of
Sheopur, whereas the Pragati Patra is of Orangabad, District Kanpur Dehat
(Uttar Pradesh). Falsity of claim is writ large. That apart, the appellant, at no
point of time, produced the said Pragati Patra either at the time of seizure or
otherwise during trial.
We have also perused the record of the Sessions Court and upon
perusal, it is found that in his statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC,
the appellant has disclosed his age as 27 years.
Upon consideration of the aforesaid reply, documents and submissions
advanced, we are of the view that the appellant has attempted to make a false
claim. Now at a distance of time of more than 7 years from the date of incident
and 4 years from the date of judgment, such recourse adopted by the appellant
besides being falsified with the documentary evidence placed on record is
found to be misuse of process of law.
Consequently, I.A. No.14500/2022 is dismissed.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Abhi
Digitally signed by
ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI
Date: 2023.02.01 11:38:39
+05'30'
