[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Pancham Singh on 16 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29985
1 CRA-12353-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 16th OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12353 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
PANCHAM SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Satyapal Chadhar - Govt. Advocate for the appellant/ State.
None for respondent.
JUDGMENT
I.A. No.24608/2022 has been filed by the appellant/State seeking
leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 30.08.2022 passed in SC DOCT No.01/2017 (State
of M.P. vs. Pancham Singh) by the learned Special Judge, M.P. Dakaiti Aur
Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, District Panna, whereby the
respondent /accused has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 188 of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)A of Arms Act R/w 11/13 of
M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabavit Kshetra Adhiniyam.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 08.01.2017 Sub-Inspector
Jaswant Singh Rajput posted as station in-charge of Brijpur police station,
when head constable No. 278 Ashok Sharma, constable No. 343 Hariram
Verma, constable No. 287 Ghanshyam . constable-302 Arvind, constable
number-223 Surendra head constable No. 341 Lavkesh Singh and head
constable driver Hakam Singh along with research kit had left for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29985
2 CRA-12353-2022
Ramkhiriya side for field tour and investigation of crime as per
Rojnamchasana No.10 and during the patrolling information was 'received
from the informer that Pancham Singh Yadav who is the accused of
externment is roaming near the culvert of Brihaspati Kund road carrying a
gun with the intention of looting. After that police authority reached the
place which is told by the informer, there tall man i.e. accused Pancham
Singh was seen with a gun in his hand under the cover of a rock on the
Brihaspati Kundside. Seeing this, he hid under the cover of the hill, who was
caught under siege and his name and address were "asked. After that a
country-made surface gun,a cap and six pieces of iron shrapnel were seized
from the right pocket of the accused's kurta and a notice under section 91
was seized from the left pocket of the accused and a seizure panchnama was
prepared and the said material was sealed on the Spot.
3. After investigation charge sheet was filed. The contents of the charges
were read over and explained to the respondent/accused, who abjured his
guilt and claimed to be tried.
4 . In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as
many as 08 witnesses, namely Ramkishore Pal (PW-1), Arvind Kumar (PW-
2), Neeraj Urmaliya (PW-3), Hariram Verma (PW-4), K. P. Rajak (PW-5),
Jaswant Singh Rajput (PW-6), B. L. Pandey (PW-7) and Vinod Yadav
(P.W.8) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/10 and Ex.D/1, the documents on record. In
defence, the respondent/accused has not examined any witness.
5 . Learned trial Court after recording the evidence of both the parties
acquitted the present respondent/accused. Hence, this appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29985
3 CRA-12353-2022
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/State has
submitted that the factum of seizure from the respondent/ accused has been
amply proved in the light of the statement of the seizure officer as well as
other humraha police officers. Though the independent witness has turned
hostile but that itself is not a ground to discard the statement of police
witnesses. As far as the other offence is concerned, there is also ample
evidence on record but overlooking that evidence and not correctly
appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial Court has erroneously
acquitted the respondent. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal be
allowed, the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside and the
respondent/accused be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned
judgment and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/State and perused the
record meticulously.
9 . It is seen from the record that independent witness Neeraj Urmaliya
(P.W.3) did not support the prosecution story. The statements of Hariram
Verma (P.W.4), Jaswant Singh Rajput (P.W.6) and B. L. Pandey (P.W.7)
regarding the seizure from accused Panchan Singh Yadav on 08.1.2017,
specifically the seizure of one country made gun, one cap, and six pellets as
per seizure memo Exhibit P/5 and his arrest as per arrest memo (Exhibit P/6)
become doubtful. Further, Hariram Verma (P.W.4) and B. L. Pandey
(P.W.7) did not state in their examination in chief before the trial Court that
Jaswant Singh Rajput (P.W.6) had sealed the said seized items on the spot in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29985
4 CRA-12353-2022
the presence of the accused on the date of incident. In the light of aforesaid,
the statement of Jaswant Singh Rajput (P.W.6) regarding sealing the alleged
seized country made gun, cap and six pellets recovered from the accused
Pancham Singh on 08.01.2017 as per seizure memo Exhibit P/5 becomes
doubtful.
10. Learned trial Court while placing reliance on the citation of C.
Muniyappan & Others Vs. State of Tamilnadu - (2010)9 SCC 56; State of
M.P. Vs. Jyotiraditya Scindia - 2014(1) JLJ 326 & Suresh Soni Vs. State of
M.P. - 2019 Law Statute (M.P.) 396 that in absence of any complaint
addressed to the concerned Magistrate, no cognizance could be taken under
Section 188 of IPC in the light of provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. Such
observation of learned trial Court is not found faulty. As far as other
offences are concerned, no independent witness has supported the story of
prosecution and the statement of police officials Hariram Verma (P.W.4),
Jaswant Singh Rajput (P.W.6) and B. L. Pandey (P.W.7) in as much as
important witness Jaswant Singh Rajput (P.W.6), the contradiction is also
revealed qua with the information of informant has been received having
regard to the statement Hariram Verma (P.W.4) and B. L. Pandey (P.W.7),
how they made strategy to caught accused and where from the various
articles has been seized from the person of the accused are also
contradictory.
11. There is no Rojnamcha entry filed in respect of Ravangi and Vapsi.
Ravangi and Vapsi Exhibit P/10 and P/11 by Vinod Yadav (P.W.8) who has
not made entry in the concerned Rojnamcha. Therefore, it cannot be said
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29985
5 CRA-12353-2022
that such entries have been got proved by witness who has prepared it.
Moreover, having regard to the various infirmities in prosecution case has
revealed from Para 24 on wards of the judgment of learned trial Court. The
statement of police personnel in respect of alleged incidence cannot be said
to be cogent and believable.
12. Similarly, Head Constable Hariram Verma (P.W.4) stated in para 5 of
his cross examination that the Sub Inspector received the informer's tip in
Ramkhiriya, whereas, Jaswant Singh Rajput (P.W.6) stated that he received
the informer's tip around 10:00 a.m. on the way to Ramkhiriya. In contrast,
B. L. Pandey (P.W.7) stated that on 08.1.2017 at about 9:45 a.m. i.e. 15
minutes before Jaswant Singh received the informer's tip - Jaswant Singh
Rajput had informed him about the informer's tip via mobile phone. Thus, it
is found that all three witnesses gave mutually contradictory statements
regarding the time of receiving the information from informer. It is also
submitted by Head Constable Hariram (P.W.4) that two parties were
formed. He was in the T.I.'s party, and he did not remember who else was in
the second party besides the Choki Incharge. However, contrary to his above
statements, in para 7 of his cross examination this witness stated that
Pancham Singh had not run away and Jaswant Singh Rajput (P.W.6) did not
state anything about two police parties being formed on the date of incident
to apprehend the accused. Further, Hariram Verma (P.W.4) stated in para 6
of his cross examination that when they reached Tiqaila, the Chowki
Incharge came in a four wheeler. Further, contrary to his statement given to
the police in Exhibit D/1, this witness stated in para 7 of his cross
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29985
6 CRA-12353-2022
examination that the yellow cap was fitted in the gun itself and the pellets
were in the pajama pocket of the accused, whereas, Investigating Officer
Jaswant Singh (P.W.06) stated that the pellets were recovered from the kurta
pocket of the accused and that the cap was broken. B. L. Pandey (P.W.7)
stated in his testimony that he went on a motorcycle with Chowki-in-charge
Vinod Yadav. In the light of these facts, the very presence of Hariram
Verma (P.W.4) at the spot during the proceedings conducted by Jaswant
Singh Rajput (P.W.6) on 08.1.2017 becomes doubtful.
13. B. L Pandey (P.W.7) stated in his testimony that at 12:10 p.m., a
country made gun, a yellow colored cap, iron pellets, and a notice under
Section 91 Cr.P.C. were seized from accused Pancham as per seizure memo
Ex. P/05, whereas the seizure memo Ex. P/05 records the time of seizure as
11:20 am. Similarly, in this regard it is also noteworthy that as per seizure
memo Ex. P/05, the seizure proceedings from the accused were recorded at
11:20 am, while in the arrest memo Ex. P/07 prepared for the accused, his
arrest is recorded about 50 minutes later at 12:10 pm. Both the seizure memo
and the arrest memo mention Crime No. 01/2017 of the police station.
However, according to the statement of Jaswant Singh Rajput (P.W. 06), the
seizure at Police Station Brijpur and the offense was registered after the
seizure and arrest proceedings. In this regard, when Jaswant Singh Rajput
(P.W. 06) was questioned during his cross-examination, he denied having
entered the crime number himself, but he did not provide any explanation as
to when and by whom the crime number was recorded in the said memos.
Therefore, for these reasons also, the proceedings conducted by Jaswant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29985
7 CRA-12353-2022
Singh Rajput (P.W. 06) on the date of incident 08.01.2017, the seizure of one
country-made gun, cap, and six pellets from accused Pancham Singh Yadav
as per seizure memo Ex. P/05 on 08.01.2017 becomes doubtful.
14. Further, if we now consider the statements of the remaining witnesses
examined by the prosecution in this regard -- the investigator of the seized
gun Arvind Kumar (P.W. 02), the prosecution sanction witness Arms Clerk
Ramkishore Pal (P.W. 01), and Investigating Officer Vinod Yadav (P.W. 08)
-- it is found that as per the court testimony given by these three witnesses,
none of them are eyewitnesses to the incident, and the testimony given by
them pertains to the work done by them in their official capacity. Therefore,
as described above, whereas the prosecution witnesses, including
independent witness Neeraj Urmaliya (P.W. 03), Head Constable Hariram
Verma (P.W. 04), scribe of the dehati nalsi K.P. Rajak (P.W. 05), Jaswant
Singh Rajput (P.W. 06), and from the statements of B.L. Pandey (P.W. 07),
the seizure of the alleged seized country-made gun, six pellets, and brass cap
from the possession of accused Pancham Singh Yadav as per seizure memo
Ex. P/05 is not clearly proved and remains doubtful, and the prosecution's
case against the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. In such a
situation, there is no justification for analyzing the statements of Armorer
Arvind Kumar (P.W. 02), Arms Clerk Ramkishore Pal (P.W. 01), and
Investigating Officer Vinod Yadav (P.W. 08) alone, and the prosecution
story against the accused with respect to the question under consideration
does not gain any strength from the statements of these witnesses alone.
15. Thus, since as described above, the seizure of one country-made gun,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29985
8 CRA-12353-2022
six pellets, and a cap from accused Pancham Singh Yadav itself becomes
doubtful. In such a situation, the presumption under Section 13A of the
Madhya Pradesh Dacoity and Kidnapping Affected Area Act, 1981 does not
arise against the accused, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
16. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds that the prosecution
has failed to establish the guilt of the respondent/accused beyond reasonable
doubt. The evidence regarding seizure of the alleged weapon and other
incriminating articles suffers from material inconsistencies and lacks
corroboration from independent witnesses. The failure of the prosecution to
prove proper sealing and safe custody of the seized articles further creates
serious doubt about the authenticity of the recovery.
17. The learned trial Court has meticulously appreciated the evidence on
record and has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the
respondent/accused. No perversity, illegality, or material irregularity has
been demonstrated in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this
Court.
18. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu, (2016)
14 SCC 151 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that prosecution has to prove
the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also the rule of
justice in criminal law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced
in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his
innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. In
case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B., (2023) 6 SCC 605 Hon'ble
Apex Court has observed that it is a settled principle of law that however
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29985
9 CRA-12353-2022
strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Unless finding of the trial Court is found to be perverse or
illegal/impossible, it is not permissible for the appellate Court to interfere
with the same.
19. Recently in case of Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3
SCC 544, the Hon'ble Apex Court has again summarized the principles while
deciding the appeal against acquittal which are as follows :-
"42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the
promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the
safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are
intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which
come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be
summarised as :
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial
and such appreciation must be comprehensive -- inclusive of all
evidence, oral or documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a
miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two
views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall
ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible view, mere
possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of
acquittal;
(v) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in
appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically address
all the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and must cover
all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate
court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or
fact in the decision of the trial court."...
20. Ex consequenti, in the light of the aforesaid discussion and the ratio of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29985
10 CRA-12353-2022
law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid cases, on careful analysis
of the evidence, the observations made by the learned trial Court in the
impugned judgment are not found to be faulty. The learned trial Court on
proper appreciation of evidence available on record has rightly acquitted the
respondent/accused. There is no ground for interference with the findings of
the trial Court.
21. Resultantly, I.A. No.24608/2022, an application seeking grant of leave
to appeal under section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Consequently,
Criminal Appeal No.12353/2022 also stands dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
mrs. mishra
