Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rakesh @ Lala Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2025

Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal

Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal

                                               1
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT JABALPU R
                                          BEFORE
                       JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12498 of 2024

                      RAKESH @ LALA YADAV AND ANOTHER

                                            Versus

                        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance

Shri S.K. Tiwari -Advocate with Shri Nitin Raj and Shri Neeraj Ashar, Advocate
for the appellants.
Shri Satyapal Chadhar- Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on           :        16.06.2025
Pronounced on :                19.06.2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This criminal appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment,
coming on for pronouncement this day, Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal
pronounced the following:
                                     JUDGMENT

Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 415(2) of Bhartiya Nagrik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (In short "BNSS.) against the judgment dated 25.10.2024

passed by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Sessions Trial No. 120/2021,

whereby trial Court has convicted appellants under Section 341 of IPC and

sentenced with fine of Rs. 500/- and Section 392 of IPC and sentenced to undergo

RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, Section 397 of IPC and sentenced to

undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and Section 506 of IPC and

Sentenced to undergo RI for 6 month with fine of Rs. 500/-. Appellant No. 2 has

also been convicted under Section 171 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3

months with fine of Rs. 100/- and Section 419 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI

for 3 years with fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation.

2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 06.07.2021, complainant Subhash Rai

had come to Katni for making purchase in relation to his daughter's marriage. On

aforesaid date, at about 12:00 after filling petrol in his motorcycle at petrol pump,

complainant proceeded a little bit further, four persons came in a Bolero Jeep and

stopped complainant Subhash Rai and thereafter robbed Rs. 90,000/- and mobile

from complainant on the point of knife and they also threatened complainant with

knife/ kata and also said that that they would falsely implicate complainant after

putting cannabis in his vehicle.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants, after referring to testimony of

complainant Subhash Rai (PW-1), submits that complainant has turned hostile and

he did not support the prosecution story in any manner whatsoever. It is urged that

he has not identified appellants. Further, after referring to record of the case, it is

urged that although allegedly two mobiles have been recovered from appellants but

there is nothing on record to show that aforesaid mobiles are one and the same that

were allegedly robbed at the alleged date, time and that place and they belong to

complainant Shubhash Rai. Therefore, there is no evidence to connect the present

appellants with the instant offence. Learned trial Court has wrongly convicted and

sentenced appellant. It is also urged that witnesses of memorandum and recovery

have turned hostile. ASI Santosh Singh (PW-4) and Investigating Officer Vipin

Singh (PW-10) are not wholly reliable witnesses. From their testimony, recovery

from appellant does not stand established. It is also urged that it is not prosecution

case that at the time of incident, appellant No.2 Raju @ Ramkrishna Singh Rajpoot

was wearing police uniform. As per prosecution story itself, the police uniform etc.

have been allegedly recovered from appellant No.2 Raju @ Ramkrishna Singh

Rajpoot from his house. Therefore, offence under Sections 171 of IPC and 419 of

IPC is also not made out. It is also urged that on above grounds, appeal filed by the

appellants be allowed and appellants be acquitted.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that prosecution

has proved its case by leading cogent evidence & has proved guilt of the

appellants beyond reasonable doubt and there are no grounds to interfere with

the same. The trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, as

above, hence appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Analysis and findings:-

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused record of the

trial court and grounds taken by the appellants/accused in the appeal memo

minutely and carefully.

6. Learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced appellant Rakesh @ Lala

Yadav under Sections 341, 392, 397 and 506 of IPC and Appellant Raju @

Ramkrishna Singh Rajpoot under Sections 341, 392, 397, 506, 171 and 419 of IPC.

7. So far as conviction of appellants under Sections 341, 392, 397 and 506 of

IPC is concerned, perusal of testimony of complainant Subhash Rai (PW-1) reveals

that in examination-in-chief, he has deposed that he does not recognize accused

Rakesh @ Lala Yadav, Raju @ Ramkrishna Singh Rajpoot and Anil Kol present in

the court. Persons, came in the Bolero vehicle and after stopping him, took away

Rs. 90,000/- and one mobile from complainant. Witness has also stated in his

examination-in-chief itself that accused, present in the court, did not commit any

incident with him. After, witness was declared hostile by the prosecution, the

witness has stated that it is not correct that accused persons, present in the court,

had committed incident with him and they had robbed him of his mobile and Rs.

90,000/-. It is also not correct that Executive Magistrate conducted identification of

accused in district jail Katni. It is also not correct that he identified accused Rakesh

@ Lala Yadav, Raju @ Ramkrishna Singh Rajpoot and Anil Kol in aforesaid

identification.

8. Thus, complainant Subhash Rai is completely hostile and he did not support

prosecution story. Perusal of complainant Subhash Rai's deposition and written

report (Ex. P/1) and FIR (Ex. P/17) reveals that therein details of mobile robbed in

the incident have not been mentioned i.e. company, model, sim number etc.. In

aforesaid, registration number or any other description of Bolero vehicle, in which

persons, who committed robbery, came, have also not been mentioned. It is also

evident from the record of the case that complainant Subhash Rai has not produced

in the case any bill etc. pertaining to mobile. It is also evident from the record of

the case that mobiles allegedly recovered in the instant case have not been got

identified by complainant Subhash Rai.

9. Hence, even if alleged recovery of mobiles and bolero vehicle is presumed

to be established, still then, it cannot be said that the mobiles allegedly recovered

in the instant case are one and the same that were robbed in the instant case and

they belong to complainant Subhash Rai. Further, in view of aforesaid, it can also

not said that Bolerlo allegedly recovered in the instant case was used for

committing the instant offence.

10. Hence, from alleged recovery of mobiles and bolero, appellants cannot be

connected with the instant offence.

11. Thus, in view of aforesaid, it cannot be said that at alleged date, time and

place, appellants stopped complainant Subhash Rai and committed robbery of Rs.

90,000/- as well as mobiles from complainant after using pistol and threatening

him. Hence, in this court's opinion, learned trial Court has wrongly convicted and

sentenced appellants under sections 341, 392, 397 and 506 of IPC.

12. So far as conviction of appellant Raju @ Ramkrishna Singh Rajpoot under

Sections 171 and 419 of IPC is concerned, perusal of testimony of complainant

Subhash Rai reveals that he has nowhere deposed in his testimony that at the time

of incident, any of the persons, who committed robbery, was in police uniform. In

written report (Ex. P/1) and FIR Ex. (P/17) also, it is not mentioned that any person

who committed the offence was in police uniform.

13. So far as recovery of police uniform etc. from appellant Raju @ Ramkrishna

Singh Rajpoot is concerned, from testimonies of Vipin Singh, Investigating

Officer (PW-10) and witness of memo/recovery, Santosh Singh, ASI (PW-4), it

appears that on the basis of Ex. P/7's memorandum, vide seizure memo (Ex. P/9-

A), one pair of police uniform including UP police logo, nameplate in the name of

Krishna Kant Chaturvedi etc. have been recovered from the house of appellant

Raju @ Ramkrishna Singh Rajpoot.

14. First question arises as to whether Vipin Singh, Investigating Officer (PW-

10) and Santosh Singh, ASI (PW-4) witness of memorandum and recovery are

reliable and trustworthy. Another witness of memo and recovery Santosh Patel

(PW-8) has turned hostile and he did not support prosecution story on the point of

memorandum and recovery from Raju @ Ramkrishna Singh Rajpoot.

15. One disturbing feature of the case is that one witness of memorandum and

recovery is a police officer Santosh Singh. ASI (PW-8). Thus, second witness of

memorandum and recovery is not an independent witness.

16. Further, from testimony of Santosh Singh, ASI (PW-4) and Vipin Singh,

Investigating Officer (PW-10) as well as seizure memo (Ex. P-9-A), it does not

appear that the articles recovered vide Ex. P/9-A were sealed on the spot. Further,

Santosh Singh, ASI (PW-4) and Vipin Singh, Investigating Officer (PW-10) have

not specifically mentioned in their statements as to from which place in the house

recovery of police uniform etc. was made vide seizure memo Ex. P/9-A and

aforesaid fact is also not mentioned in seizure memo (Ex. P/9-A). In the instant

case, it is also not clear from the record of the case that at the time of Ex. P/9-A's

recovery whether appellant was solely residing in the house or any other persons

were also residing in the house as mentioned in Ex. P/9-A.

17. Further, from testimony of Investigating Officer Vipin Singh (PW-10), it is

evident that no inquiry has been made as to whether any person in the name of

Krishna Kant Chaturvedi was in UP police or not or any person in the name of

Krishan Kant Chaturvedi was residing in the house or not. Further, as the articles,

allegedly seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P/9-A), were not sealed on the spot,

therefore, it cannot be said that the articles exhibited during testimony of

Investigating Officer Vipin Singh (PW-10) are same which were allegedly

recovered vide seizure memo (Ex. P/9-A).

18. Further, perusal of Ex. P/9-A reveals that in column 12 entries No. 1 and 2

have been made in different ink and from different pen and signature of appellant

Raju @ Ramkrishan Singh Rajpoot is in different ink and from different pen.

Similarly, name and other details of Vipin Singh, Investigating Officer (PW-10),

are mentioned in the same ink and from the same pen as are entries in column 12

but signature of Vipin Singh, Investigating Officer (PW-10), appears to be in

different ink and from different pen.

19. Hence, in view of discussion in the forgoing para, in this court's opinion,

prosecution witness Santosh Singh, ASI (PW-4) and Vipin Singh Investigating

Officer (PW-10) are not wholly reliable and trustworthy witness on the point of

memorandum and recovery from appellant Raju @ Ramkrishna Singh Rjpoot.

Hence, memorandum (Ex. P/7) and seizure memo (Ex. P/9-A) do not stand

established from evidence on record.

20. Admittedly in the instant case, there is no impersonation as defined in

Section 416 of IPC and punishable under Section 419 of IPC.

21. Further, section 171 of IPC reads as under:-

"171. Wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent.--

Whoever, not belonging to a certain class of public servants, wears any garb or carries any token resembling any garb or token used by that class of public servants, with the intention that it may be believed, or with the knowledge that it is likely to be believed, that he belongs to that class of public servants, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both."

22. Perusal of aforesaid provision of Section 171 of IPC as well as evidence

available on record clearly reveals that it is not established from evidence on

record that at the time of incident, appellant Raju @ Ramkrishna Singh Rajpoot

was wearing aforesaid police uniform as allegedly recovered vide seizure memo

(Ex. P/9-A) or was carrying any token resembling any garb/UP police uniform or

token used by UP police etc.

23. Resultantly, in view of discussion in the forgoing paras, appellant Raju @

Ramkrishana Singh Rajpot can also not be convicted and sentenced under Sections

171 and 419 of IPC. Hence, in view of discussion, in the forgoing paras, in this

court's considered opinion, learned trial Court has erred in convicting and

sentencing him for aforesaid offence.

24. Accordingly, appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and impugned judgment