Ratan vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Per Shailendra Shukla, J:

Heard on IA No.3024/2020 which is an application filed under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking suspension of sentence of appellant-Ratan who has been convicted by Sessions Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989, in ST No.20/2019 vide judgment dated 03.03.2019 and has been sentenced him as under:

Conviction

Sentence

Section & Act

Imprisonment

Fine Amount

Imprisonment in lieu of fine

364/120B IPC

07 years RI

Rs.1000/-

In default 12 months RI

302/120B IPC

Life Imprisonment

Rs.20,000/-

In default 03 months RI

201/120B IPC

03 years RI

Rs.500/-

In default 01 months RI

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this case, only the present appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 120-B IPC, whereas all the other accused persons have been convicted for individual acts under Section 302, 364 and 201 of IPC. Learned counsel has referred to citation of Topan Das vs State of Bombay AIR 1956 SC PAGE-33 in which it has been held that when out of four accused persons, three are acquitted of charge, the remaining one accused could never be guilty of the offence of criminal conspiracy. He has also submitted that the appellant had given assurance to the family members of the deceased that the deceased is in safe condition and that he would handed over the deceased in safe condition was barely an assurance and he being the Sarpanch of a village, was duty bound to assure the father of deceased and nothing extra should be read into such assurance.

Per contra, learned public prosecutor for the State was also heard and she has referred to paragraphs 32 and 33 of the judgment of trial Court in which the assurance given by the present appellant has been shown to be signifying his involvement in the criminal conspiracy. Further, in paragraph 47 of the judgment, it has been mentioned that all the accused have been shown to be involved in conspiracy to commit murder of Ajay (the deceased) and, therefore, the only ommission of Section 120-B IPC in respect of other co-accused persons is of no significance.

The prosecution story in short was that on 30.12.2018, a missing person's report was lodged by one Ramsingh regarding missing of his son-Ajay. A merg was instituted and it came to be known that on 28.12.2018, Ajay had gone on a motorcycle with Rajesh. When Ajay could not be traced, his father-Ramsingh went to the house of present appellant who was the Sarpanch of Village who told him that he would produce Ajay within one hour and compromise can be entered into. Co-accused-Indersingh and Radheshyam also gave an assurance that his son is in good condition and is being fed properly. However, the body of Ajay (deceased) was found in the agricultural field of one Sukhlal. There were number of injuries on the person of deceased (Ajay) and the body was subjected to post-mortem. In all, 11 injuries were found in the post mortem examination. The injuries are found to be in left Zygometic region, in the form of deep incised wound, abrasions on chest on right side and other injuries on right thigh and right knee, fracture in foreribs, rupture of kidney and fracture of right radius bone.

During investigation, it was revealed that Ajay and Rajesh both were carrying two girls namely; Resham (PW/9) and Mausam (PW/10) but they were traced by other accused-Indersingh and therefore, Ajay tried to speed up his motorcycle but suffered from accident. Thereafter, deceased-Ajay could not be traced and the body of Ajay was recovered later.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the aforesaid injury could be caused by motor vehicle accident and the possibility of accident has been admitted by Doctor.

Considered.

Although the Doctor has given such opinion, had it been an accidental death, the body of Ajay would have been found on the road itself because the injuries were so serios that he could not move from the spot of accident. The prosecution story was that the accused were furious to see that the deceased was carrying the daughter of accused-Indersingh. Hence, they committed the murder of Ajay.

Record was perused.

Ramsingh (PW/1) has stated that his son-Ajay had gone with Rajesh and that accused/appellant-Ratan is uncle-in-law of Rajesh. The witness states that when he came to know about the accident of motorcycle of his son, he started searching for his son and went to the house of Sarpanch-Ratan (present appellant). The present appellant-Ratan told him not to lodge any report and that his son would be handed over to him within one hour. When he asked appellant-Ratan as to whether he has seen his son, Ratan told him nothing but told him that compromise will have to be entered into. At that point of time, the witness told Ratan that would pay whatever amount is asked for the release of his son.

Ramsingh (PW/1) in his cross-examination admits that appellant-Ratan is related to him. There has been no evidence of any previous enmity between the present appellant-Ratan and deceased-Ajay or his family members. Infact they are related to each other. The appellant-Ratan is uncle-in-law of Rajesh who had accompanied Ajay. It appears that Rajesh knew about the fact that Ajay had been taken away by other co-accused persons and, therefore, through Rajesh appellant-Ratan came to know and therefore he talked about entering into compromise with other co-accused persons. Prima-facie there does not appear to be any conspiracy between the present appellant-Ratan and other co-accused persons.

There is substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that appellant-Ratan had assured Ramsingh in his capacity as Sarpach of the village. Further it has also come to light that appellant is a relative of Ramsingh and there is no evidence of enmity between the present appellant and Ramsingh (father of deceased).

After duly considering the aforesaid facts and cirucmstances of the case and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, it appears that at the most Ramsingh knew through Rajesh that deceased-Ajay is in captivity of accused persons and therefore he gave an assurance that Ajay would be brought before Ramsingh within an hour. However, there is no evidence to the effect that appellant-Ratan and other co-accused persons had reached an agreement to kill Ajay. In view of the above discussion, the application-IA No.3024/2020 is being allowed.

It is directed that substantive jail sentence of the appellant - Ratan shall be suspended subject to his depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited) and on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one local solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 09.09.2020 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry, in this behalf. Accordingly, IA No.3024/2020 stands disposed of.

List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

Certified Copy, as per Rules.