Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saligram Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.8776 OF 2022
BETWEEN:-
SALIGRAM GURJAR S/O SHRI
SIKANDAR SINGH GURJAR, AGED
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION NONE,
R/O GRAM DABKA, PS
BHAVARPURA, DISRICT GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI A.K.JAIN - ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH POLICE STATION
KOLARAS, DISTRICT GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY DR. ANJALI GYANANI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 04/10/2023
Delivered on : 9/10/2023
2
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Rohit Arya passed the following:
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 30/05/2017 passed by
Special Judge (under the MPDVPK Act), Shivpuri in Special
Sessions Case No. 400047/2009 whereby the present appellant
stands convicted under Section 364A of the IPC read with
S.11/13 of the Madhaya Pradesh Daikaiti Evam Vypharan
Prabhavait Kshetra Adhiniyam (for brevity "MPDVPK Act")
and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of
Rs.500/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month.
2. Prosecution story, as found proved, is that on
24/02/2009, Govind Kushwaha (PW2) along with his son Vijay
Singh (PW3), had gone on his Discover Bajaj Motorcycle to
attend Bhandara (community feast) on the occasion of
Shivratri at Baans Wali Nursery Gora. After eating at the
Bhandara, they along with Chowkidar Bablu Yadav, returned
for Shivpuri. Govind was on one motorcycle, whereas Vijay
Singh and Bablu were on another motorcycle. They were
waylaid by one miscreant who was armed with gun and asked
them to stop. Accordingly, all the three persons stopped there.
In the meanwhile, 3 more miscreants, who were hiding behind
the bushes, also came there and took them about 50 meters
inside the forest area along with their motorcycles. Thereafter,
all the three persons were taken inside the forest area, after
leaving their motorcycles at that place. When, the three
abductees were being taken inside the forest area, at that time,
Govind Singh and Vijay Singh saw that one person had come
out of the bushes, who was identified by them as Harnam
Singh. Thereafter, all the three abductees were compelled to
move from one place to another. Thereafter, Vijay Singh was
instructed to talk to his family members from his mobile.
Accordingly, an information of abduction was given to Afaq
Ahmed and then, the employees of forest department gathered.
Thereafter, they went to the house of Govind Singh and later
on, F.I.R. was lodged by Afaq Ahmed Siddique which was
registered as Crime No.48/2009. The police prepared spot map
on the instructions of Afaq Ahmed Siddique. During search,
motorcycles were recovered, which were got identified. In the
meanwhile, Govind Singh was released by miscreants with an
instruction that he should wait for further instructions and
phone. The recovery memo of Govind Singh was prepared on
26-2-2009. Thereafter, an information was received by Govind
Singh, that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- be paid for release of
Vijay Singh and Bablu. Accordingly, Govind Singh, paid said
amount. Thereafter, Vijay Singh and Bablu were also released.
Their recovery memo dated 6-3-2009 was prepared. Co-
accused Harkanth was arrested on 25-2-2009. On 13-3-2009,
Harnam Singh was arrested and on 24-4-2009, Jagdish was
arrested. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The
police after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet
for offence under Sections 364A of I.P.C. and under Section
11/13 of MPDVPK Act. Since, present appellant Saligram, as
well as, Rajendra @ Gutta and Pappu were absconding
therefore, charge sheet under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. was filed
against them. On 7/5/2011, the present appellant was arrested
by SI Ramendra Singh Chauhan (PW15). As the other accused
persons had already been tried and convicted vide judgment
dated 11/3/2010 passed in S.T. No. 47/09, the present appellant
after his arrest was tried separately leading to his conviction by
the impugned judgment, as indicated above.
3. It is pertinent to mention that the FIR (Ex.P/3) had been
filed against unknown persons. Co-accused Jagdish, Harkanth
and Harnam Singh had challenged their conviction and
sentence before this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 233/2010,
239/2010 and 281/2010 respectively and vide judgment dated
9/11/2021, appeals have been allowed by a co-ordinate Bench
of this Court resulting into their acquittal. While recording
acquittal of the appellants therein, the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, upon threadbare appreciation of evidence on record,
found that the prosecution had failed to prove that Govind
Singh, Vijay Singh and Bablu were abducted by the appellants
therein and that the prosecution had also failed to prove that
any demand of ransom of Rs.10 lacs was ever made or for that
matter the said amount was paid by Govind Singh. The Court
also found that the prosecution had failed to prove that Vijay
Singh and Bablu Yadav were released only after payment of
ransom amount. In other words, the demand and payment of
ransom has not been found proved by the co-ordinate Bench.
As informed by the learned Public Prosecutor, the said
judgment has not been put to challenge before the Apex Court
and the said findings have thus attained finality. As this appeal
pertains to the same incident, this Court, as a measure of
judicial discipline, cannot re-appreciate the evidence with
regard to demand or payment of ransom and, hence, the
conviction of the appellant under section 364A of the IPC
cannot be maintained.
4. After the appellant was arrested on 7/5/2011, he has been
tried separately. The prosecution re-examined abductee Govind
Singh Kushwah as PW2, Vijay Singh Kuswaha as PW3 and
complainant Afaq Ahmad as PW5. The appellant has been dock
identified by the abductees Govind Singh Kushwha (PW2),
Vijay Singh Kushwaha (PW3) and Bablu Yadav (PW4) in
paragraphs 4, 3 and 11 respectively. Nothing could be elicited
in their cross-examination to dislodge their testimony in this
behalf.
5. However, as indicated above, the demand and payment of
ransom have not been found proved by the co-ordinate Bench
in this incident. As such, even if appellant has been dock
identified, in absence of proof of demand of ransom, the
conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 364A of
the IPC cannot be maintained and are accordingly set aside.
Yet, looking to the fact that he has been identified as one of the
miscreants by all the abductees, his complicity in the offence of
abduction punishable under section 364, IPC cannot be ruled
out. Accordingly, appellant is convicted for the offence
punishable under section 364, IPC. Further, considering the
overall facts and circumstances of the case including that the
incident is of the year 2009 and the appellant is in jail since
7/5/2011, interests of justice would be sub-served, if he is
sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.500/- in
default to suffer RI for one month. Ordered accordingly.
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated
above.
As informed by learned counsel for the appellant, despite
having been extended the benefit of suspension of custodial
sentence on 30/1/2023 by this Court, the appellant could not
furnish bail and is still in jail.
As such, the appellant is in jail since 7/5/2011 and has
already suffered more than ten years of incarceration. He be
released forthwith, if not required in any other offence.
Copy of this judgment along with record of the trial
Court be sent to the trial Court for compliance.
(Rohit Arya) (Avanindra Kumar Singh)
Judge Judge
(and)
ANAND
SHRIVASTAV
A
2023.10.09
19:09:09
+05'30'
