Criminal Appeal No. 938 of 2006. Case: Vinod Tyagi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 938 of 2006 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: A.K. Jain, Advocate and For Respondents: Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor |
| Judges | N.K. Gupta and Anand Pathak, JJ. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 157; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 201, 302, 34, 364A; Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 - Section 13 |
| Judgement Date | January 10, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
N.K. Gupta, J.
-
The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 22.11.2006 passed by the Special Judge under the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 (for brevity "the MPDVPK Act") Gwalior (M.P.) in Special Sessions Case No. 145/2002 whereby the appellant has been convicted of offence under Section 364A of IPC read with Section 13 of the MPDVPK Act 302/34 of IPC read with Section 13 of the MPDVPK Act and Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/-, imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/- and rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 500/- respectively.
-
Prosecution's case, in short is that Banti, brother of Gyan Singh (P.W. 20), was the student of Shilpi School, Pinto Park, Gwalior (M.P.) On 04.10.2002 Banti went to Pinto Park market in the evening and thereafter he did not come back to his house. Initially complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (P.W. 20) and his family members thought that Banti would have gone to their another house. On 05.10.2002 when he was not found at another house then he was traced amongst his friends and others. On suspicion, Gyan Singh Rathore (P.W. 20) along with various persons went to the house of the appellant where the accused Afzal was present, however, appellant also came to the house after sometime. On asking, appellant Vinod Tyagi told the complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (P.W. 20) that the deceased Banti was kidnapped and he would receive a letter relating to demand of ransom, shortly. Thereafter, Gyan Singh Rathore (P.W. 20) went to the Police Station Gola Ka Mandir, Gwalior (M.P.) and lodged the FIR Ex. P-1. ASI Mr. R.S. Choudhary (P.W. 8) started enquiry but he could not get any clue of the deceased. DSP Mr. Rakesh Sinha (P.W. 14) started investigation after registration of the case. He could trace accused Vinod Tyagi on 09.10.2002 and he was asked about the deceased Banti. Appellant Vinod Tyagi gave a confessional statement memo Ex. P-6 in which he accepted that he along with other persons killed the deceased Banti by strangulation and dead body of the deceased was hidden in a field whereas pant and shirt of the deceased along with scarf of the appellant had been thrown in the well of one Kushwah. He also gave information that the kidnapping of Banti was done by using a scooter and that was lying in his rented house at New Ram Vihar Colony Gwalior (M.P.). Memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act relating to accused Afzal was also recorded.
-
Thereafter, on showing the dead body of the deceased by the appellant Vinod, the same was recovered by a seizure memo Ex. P-8. Actually the dead body was highly decomposed and a few bones were found at the spot. Thereafter, on showing the well by the appellant one constable Munnalal (P.W. 19) dived into the well and recovered the clothes, scarf and a rope from it and the same were seized by seizure memo Ex. P-11. After perusal of the clothes etc. the dead body of the deceased Banti was identified and a memo Ex. P-9 was prepared. One scooter bearing registration number MP07 Y/0681 along with registration book was recovered from the appellant Vinod and a recovery memo Ex. P-13 was prepared. The dead body of deceased Banti was sent for post mortem. Dr. J.N. Soni (P.W. 15) conducted the post mortem and gave his report Ex. P-20. According to him, the dead body was of a very young child aged between 12-14 years. Since the body was highly putrefied and vital organs of the body were missing, the cause of death could not be ascertained. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed by the prosecution.
-
The appellant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea in the case, hence, no defence evidence was adduced.
-
The charge-sheet was filed against four persons out of which the accused Afzal Khan and Lalla Jatav were shown to be absconding whereas the trial court acquitted the accused Nabi Khan, however, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
-
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
-
In the present case, there is no eyewitness to the prosecution story. Entire case depends upon the circumstantial evidence and therefore the chain of circumstantial evidence is to be considered by discussing each and every piece of chain separately. The first piece in the chain of circumstantial evidence was the fact of last seen. In this connection, Amar Singh Rathore (P.W. 4), Ramniwas Rathore (P.W. 5), Pinto Rathore (P.W. 10) etc. were examined. Out of them, Pinto Rathore (P.W. 10) did not give any information about the deceased and the appellant before the trial court. Amar Singh Rathore (P.W. 4) has stated that on 06.10.2002, he had seen the appellant Vinod and accused Afzal with the deceased...
To continue reading
Request your trial