Criminal Appeal Nos. 970 and 1225 of 2013. Case: Deepak Tiwari and Ors. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)

Case NumberCriminal Appeal Nos. 970 and 1225 of 2013
CounselFor Appellant: Mrigendra Singh, Learned Senior Counsel and Vikas Mahawar, Learned Counsel and For Respondents: Prakash Gupta, Learned Panel Lawyer
JudgesS.K. Gangele and Subodh Abhyankar, JJ.
IssueArms Act, 1959 - Section 25(1B)(a); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 161; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 120B, 302
Judgement DateFebruary 02, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)


Subodh Abhyankar, J.

  1. These appeals revolve around the murder of Virendra Singh @ Montu Verma which took place on 14.12.2006 in which in Criminal Appeal No. 970/2013, it is a case of circumstantial evidence whereas in Criminal Appeal No. 1225/2013, it is a case of eye-witness account. Both these criminal appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment, as they arise out of the judgment dated 9.4.2013 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No. 144/2007.

  2. Criminal Appeal No. 970/2013 has been preferred by appellants Deepak Tiwari and Sukhendra Tiwari, whereas Criminal Appeal No. 1225/2013 has been preferred by appellants Vikas Sethi and Ganesh Ram Choudhary. They are convicted and sentenced as under:

    Name of accused

    Conviction u/s


    Fine (Rs.)

    Default clause

    Deepak Tiwari

    302 r/w 120-B of IPC

    RI for life


    RI for six months


    302 r/w 120-B of IPC

    RI for life


    RI for Six months


    302 of IPC 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act

    RI for life RI for two years


    RI for six months RI for one month


    302 r/w 120-B of IPC

    RI for life


    RI for six months

  3. The prosecution case in short is that prior to 4 to 6 days from 14.12.2006, deceased Virendra Singh @ Montu Verma was looking depressed as he was not sleeping well and there was blackening around his eyes and he was restless also. On 14.12.2006 at around 2:30 PM when the deceased Virendra Singh started to leave for his shop "Panchali Garments" from his home, his father Ram Singh Verma (PW-1) asked him regarding his problem, the deceased Virendra Singh told his father that he is disturbed because he is receiving phone calls since last 4 to 6 days from some persons demanding a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs with a threat that if the said demand is not met, they would kill him. When Ramsingh Verma (PW-1) asked him about the identity of these persons, then the deceased Virendra Singh @ Montu Verma told him that these persons are Sukhendra Tiwari, who was in jail and his cousin brother Deepak Tiwari, both of whom are residing at Ganga Nagar. After hearing this, Ramsingh Verma told his son Montu that they would lodge a report in the police station. Thereafter, before the FIR could be lodged or any action could be taken, when the deceased Virendra @ Montu went to his shop and Ramsingh Verma was busy in Pooja at Home, at that time, Ramsingh Verma received a call from his shop and was informed that at about 2:40 PM somebody has shot Virendra Singh and by the time Ramsingh Verma reached the shop, Virendra Singh was already taken to the hospital, and that is where he came to know that his son Virendra Singh died.

  4. Thereafter, Marg Intimation (Ex. P-42) was recorded at the instance of PW/23 David Massey who was an employee in the shop. In the marg it is mentioned that on 14.12.2006 at around 2:30 PM when deceased Montu @ Virendra Singh was sitting in his shop, a man aged around 25-30 years came to his shop and shot him by a revolver and thereafter he ran away from the spot with co-accused, who was already standing outside the shop with a motorcycle. Thereafter, an FIR (Ex. P-52) was lodged at Police Station Omti, Jabalpur and after completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against as many as 17 accused persons, namely, Vikas Sethi, Ganesh Ram Choudhary, Deepak Tiwari, Sandeep @ Bantu Rajput, Sachin Koshta, Amit @ Bunti Rajput, Ratan Yadav, Manikant Kuril @ Rana, Amit Kumar Sonkar, Rajendra Pille, Akash @ Prakash Singh, Sukhendra Tiwari, Sushil Yadav, Vijay Yadav, Sumit Sethi @ Kake, Naveen Shukla and Hemant Singh, except the aforesaid four appellants/accused persons, namely, Vikas Sethi, Ganesh Ram Choudhary, Deepak Tiwari and Sukhendra Tiwari, all of them have been acquitted.

  5. The learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur after recording the evidence of the witnesses and appreciating the same, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para 2 of this judgment.

  6. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence, the instant appeals have been preferred by the present appellants.

  7. Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 970/2013 filed on behalf of accused Deepak Tiwari and Sukhendra Tiwari, has submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence so far as the these two appellants are concerned and although the allegation is of committing of murder of the deceased Virendra Singh, for his not yielding to the illegal demand of Rs. 10 lakhs made by the appellants, still there is no evidence on record against the appellants to connect them with the alleged offence.

  8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the names of the present appellants did not find place in the FIR dated 14.12.2006 and though the father of the deceased has indeed named the present appellants and an effort has been made to corroborate the same with the testimony of Constable Bachanlal Yadav (PW/21) and PW/3 Ramesh Chandra Sharma, the Head Constable but the same are not reliable. In the statement recorded on 15.12.2006 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of Constable Bachcha Lal Yadav (PW-21), he has stated that from 7.12.2006 to 22.12.2006 he was on the Court duty when he saw accused Sukhendra Tiwari, accused Sushil Yadav and accused Vikas Sethi before the CJM Court. So far as the case of appellant Dipak Tiwari is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the testimony of Head Constable Ramesh Kumar Sharma (PW-3) assume importance because according to the prosecution case, this witness over heard conversation between appellant...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT