VASUDEV vs STATE of M.P.

VASUDEV vs STATE of M.P. - Supreme Court Case 2022

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 388   OF 2021

VASUDEV …APPELLANT

Versus

STATE of M.P. ...RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

J.K. Maheshwari, J.

       Arising out of the judgment dated 14.02.2020 passed in

Criminal Appeal No. 622 of 2009 by the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh, judicature at  Jabalpur, confirming the judgment dated

7.3.2009 in S.T. No. 185 of 2006 passed by the 6th  Additional

Sessions   Judge   (Fast   Track   Court),   Chhatarpur,   the   present

Special Leave Petition has been   filed,       in which leave was

granted directing to call for the record.  However, this appeal has

been registered and heard on priority basis as the appellant

being the senior citizen.

1

2. The case of the prosecution in brief  is that on 15.6.2006,

Sub   Inspector   R.S.   Bagri   (PW6)   along   with   Sub­Divisional

Officer  Dr. Sanjay Agrawal (PW10) reached village Mahoi Kala

on   having   information     at   Police   Station   Sarwai     that

absconding   accused     Rajesh   Shukla   was   hiding     with   his

associate members in the said village.     It was also informed

that accused Rajesh Shukla was beside   the house of Jhallu

Kachhi of the said village.  The police personnel of nearby police

stations were  called  at Village Mahoi Kala.   Thereafter, under

the command of S.D.O.P. Dr. Sanjay Agrawal (PW10), police

parties were prepared to apprehend the accused. The police

parties surrounded the house of Jhallu Kachhi.   Dr. Sanjay

Agrawal (PW10) challenged the accused persons to surrender

and   come out   of the house of Jhallu Kachhi.   The accused

Rajesh Shukla did not surrender and open the fire on the police

personnel from inside the house.  The police parties retaliated

the   firing.     After   sometime,   the   accused   Rajesh     Shukla

expressed  his   wish   to   surrender.    Accordingly,   the   accused

Rajesh Shukla  along with accused/appellant Vasudev Shukla

2

surrendered before the police and they were taken into custody.

After   surrendering,   one   315   bore   rifle   along   with   19   live

cartridges and 5 empty cartridges were recovered from accused

Rajesh Shuka, whereas   one 12 bore double barrel gun along

with 20 live cartridges and 7 empty cartridges were recovered

from   accused   Vasudev   Shukla.     The   first   information   was

registered as Exb. P­18.   The weapons, so surrendered, had

been seized at the police station along with live cartridges  Exb.

P­4 to P­6.     The accused persons were arrested   vide arrest

panchnama   Exb.   P9   and   P10.     After   completion   of   the

investigation, challan was filed.  As the  case was triable  by the

Court of Sessions, therefore, it was committed to the competent

court,   where   the   charges   under   Sections   307/34   read   with

Section 3/25(1B)(a) and Section 27/34 of the Arms Act were

framed against both the accused.   The accused abjured their

guilt   and     demanded   trial   by   taking   a   defence   of   false

implication.     Appellant­Vasudev     specifically taken defence

that after coming back from the jail, he had surrendered his

son Rajesh in P.S. Sarwai.  The police personnel have prepared

3

a   false   case   sitting   in   the   police   station,   implicating   the

appellant and c­accused Rajesh Shukla in this case.

3. Prosecution   has   examined   as   many   as   16   witnesses,

while the accused has not examined any witness in defence.

Trial   Court,   after   referring   the   statement   of   the   witnesses,

convicted the accused persons on taking pretext  that they were

aware regarding the challenge of the police party for surrender.

Instead of surrendering,  the accused persons fired gun shots,

which were retaliated by the police party.  After sometime, both

the accused   had surrendered throwing their guns.  The Trial

Court, further observed that guns so seized, may fire and the

used and un­used  cartridges of 315 bore as well as a 12 bore

double barrel gun were seized, which finds support from the

FSL Report Exb. P­17A regarding use of the said guns.  As the

accused persons were holding the guns, without any license,

therefore,   they   have   been   convicted   for   the   charges   under

Section 307/34 IPC read with Section 3/25 (1B)(a) and 27 of

the Arms Act and directed to undergo R.I. for four years with

fine of Rs. 2,000/­ and  R.I. for two years with fine of Rs. 1000

4

and R.I. for three years with fine of Rs. 1000 respectively  with

default   sentences.     It   was   directed     by   the   Court   that   the

aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently.

4. The judgment passed by the Trial Court was challenged

before the High Court by filing Criminal Appeal No. 622 of

2009.     As the appellant Rajesh Shukla died on 19.2.2016,

therefore, his appeal was dismissed as abated, while  the appeal

of the appellant Vasudev Shukla has been dismissed confirming

the judgment of Trial Court in toto.

5.     Shri H.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel   appearing for the

appellant has argued with vehemence that as per the case of

prosecution itself, there was no apprehension of abscondment

of appellant.  From the statement of prosecution witnesses, it is

clear that deceased co­accused Rajesh Shukla was allegedly

said to be hiding himself in the house of Jhallu Kachhi and not

the appellant.   The prosecution witnesses have not named and

seen   the   appellant   firing   on   them,   having   intention   and

knowledge to commit the murder.  As per the seizure Exb. P­5,

12  bore  double barrel  gun,  20 live cartridges  and 7  empty

5

cartridges were seized from him. FSL report Exb. P­17A clearly

indicates that  there was  disparity to match TC (A2 L.B.) for the

firing pin impression to Exb.  EC 6,7,8,9,12.  Therefore, those

five  cartridges were not fired through the left barrel of 12 bore

gun Exb. A­2.  Similarly, the right barrel of 12 bore gun Exb.

A­2 , had not been used in firing because it was cut and short

by which weapon could not be matched with the cartridges.  It

is further urged that as per the testimony of the witnesses, it is

clear that  they had not seen firing any of the accused on police

party. It is said the object of the fire was towards hill  and not

towards   the   accused   persons   as     is   apparent   from   the

statement   of   H.C.   Akbar   Singh   Gaur   (PW5).   In   such

circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the intention

and   knowledge   to   commit   an   act   which   may   amounting   to

commission of an offence   attempt   to murder.   In absence

thereto, the conviction of the appellant for an offence under

Section 307/34 of IPC is contrary to the settled proposition  of

law.  In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on

the judgment of this Court in the case of   Parsuram Pandey

6

and others  vs.  State of  Bihar,     AIR 2004 SC 5068.     It is

further urged that  the right barrel of 12 bore gun seized from

appellant was cut and short, making it impossible to fire from

this weapon and the empty cartridges have not been fired from

left barrel as apparent from FSL report  Exb. P­17A.  Therefore,

the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act has not been

made out.  Even assuming that the offence under Section 25(1­

B)(a) is made out, sentence as awarded by the Trial Court is two

years, which the appellant has already served as per the report

available   on   record.     Therefore,   while   setting   aside   the

conviction   and   the   sentence   for   an   offence   under   Sections

307/34 and 27 Arms Act, appellant  may be directed to  be

released 

6. Per   contra,   Shri   Mukul   Singh,   learned   counsel

representing the State submits that the Trial Court and the

High Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant

by the impugned judgment, however interference in this appeal

is not warranted in exercise of power under Article 136 of the

Constitution of India.

7

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, first of all, it

is required to be seen what are the ingredients to prove an

offence under Section 307 of IPC.  On perusal of the provisions,

it is apparent that whoever does any act, with intention or

knowledge, which may cause death and in furtherance   to the

said intention and knowledge, he was doing an act towards it.

However, it is required to be seen  by the evidence brought on

record by the prosecution whether the ingredients to prove, the

case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, the charge under

Section 307/34 IPC  have been  established.  In this regard, the

star witnesses of the prosecution are  ASI J.P. Verma (PW 4),

H.C. Akbar Singh Gaur  (PW5), SDOP  Dr. Sanjay Agrawal (PW

10),     H.C. Uday Raj Singh (PW14), S.I. Arvind Singh Dangi

(PW15) and S.I. R.S. Bagri (PW16). As per their testimonies, it is

apparent that an information of hiding by the deceased accused

Rajesh   Shukla   with   his   associates   in   the   house   of   Jhallu

Kachhi of village Mahoi Kala was received.   In their statements,

it is not said that appellant was with him. The police personnel

of nearby police stations were   called   at Village Mahoi Kala.

8

Thereafter, under the command of S.D.O.P. Dr. Sanjay Agrawal

(PW10), police parties were prepared to apprehend the accused.

The   police   parties   were   deputed   in   different   directions   and

warning to surrender was given to Rajesh Shukla. On such

warning, as stated by them, firing was made from inside the

house of Jhallu Kachhi. H.C. Akbar Singh Gaur (PW5) in crossexamination clearly said  that the said firing was towards the

hill area and not towards the police party. None of the said

prosecution witnesses have seen the appellant firing on police

party,   with   intention   or   knowledge   to   commit   an   offence,

proving his guilt. Subsequently, as alleged, Rajesh Shukla and

appellant had surrendered along with guns before the police

party.     As   per   the   said   testimony,   it   is   apparent   that   the

intention and knowledge to commit an act by them towards the

police party has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Simultaneously, as per the statement of prosecution witnesses,

it has come on record that all the proceedings   including the

arrest, seizure  have been prepared at the police station and not

on   the   spot.     However,   defence   as   taken   by   the   appellant

9

appears   to   be   plausible,   and   creates   reasonable   doubt   in

proving   the   guilt   by   prosecution.   It   is   not   out   of   place   to

mention that  three independent witnesses  Shivnath Anuragi

(PW7), Barra (PW8)  and Jhallu Kachhi (PW13), in whose house

incident   had   taken   place,   had   not   supported   the   case   of

prosecution.   As   per   the   cross­examination   of   prosecution

witnesses, it is apparent that Santosh Shukla was present on

the   spot.   He   was   having   good   relations   with   the   SHO   and

inimical   with   the   accused   Rajesh   Shukla.   However,   being

independent person, why in his presence, the seizure and the

arrest   were not made by police, is not explained and highly

doubtful.     There   is   no   independent   witness   in   any   of   the

proceedings though may be available.   The High Court, while

convicting  the  appellant   by  the  impugned  judgment,  merely

observed that   because accused were prized goons   and were

absconding and as per the deposition, it could not  be said that

the appellant No. 2 was not involved  because he was arrested

on   spot   and   taken   to   police   station.   In   this   regard,     it   is

required to observe that the prosecution is required to prove its

10

case beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction cannot be

based   merely   on the basis of presumption to   rule out the

presence of accused.    It is to further observe  that as per FSL

Report Exb. P­17A, it is clear that from the right barrel of 12

bore gun,   Exb. A­2,   fire could not   be done and the empty

cartridges, which were received, have not been fired from the

left barrel.  Therefore, the use of 12 bore gun which was seized

from the appellant   is not proved along with live and empty

cartridges. As the use of the gun itself  is not established by the

FSL report, therefore, the conviction under Section 27 Arms Act

also is not justified.   Considering   all these aspects, in our

considered  opinion, the ingredients of Section 307/34 IPC and

Section   27   of   the   Arms   Act   have   not   been   proved   by   the

prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, proving the guilt of the

accused/appellant.

8. In view of the foregoing, the Trial Court and High Court

committed   error in convicting   the appellant for the charge

under   Section   307/34   IPC   read   with   Section   27   Arms   Act.

Therefore,   we   allow   this   appeal   in   part   and   set­aside   the

11

conviction and sentence for  the said charges, and acquit the

appellant for the same, except   of the charge under Section

25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act. The   appellant   has   already   served

the sentence for the charge under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms

Act, therefore, if he is not required in any other case,   be

released forthwith from jail.

9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and disposed

of.

………………………….J.

[ INDIRA BANERJEE ]

……………………………J.

[ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 1, 2022.

  

12

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले