Evidence Law – Minor discrepancies, embellishments, contradictions in the evidence of witnesses would not be material to discard the prosecution story but where the discrepancies or contradictions are to such an extent which shakes the very foundation of the prosecution case and which makes the evidence of the witnesses untrustworthy, then it would be very difficult rather hazardous to rely upon such evidence.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR

DIVISION BENCH

PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA MAHAJAN & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA

Date of Judgment : 01/12/2017

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 142 OF 2008

Gappe alias Vimlesh -Vs- State of M.P.

& CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 470 OF 2008

Raju alias Ganga Singh -Vs- State of M.P.

Shri Sushil Goswami, Counsel for the appellants. Shri Prakhar Dhengula, Public Prosecutor for the respondents/State.

J U D G M E N T

PER JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA:

This common judgment shall also dispose of Criminal Appeal No.470/2008 filed by Appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh.

2. These two Criminal Appeals have been filed by appellants Gappe @ Vimlesh and Raju @ Ganga Singh against the judgment and sentence dated 5-1-2008 passed by Special Judge (M.P.D.V.P.K. Act), Bhind in Special Sessions Trial No. 89/2006 by which the appellant Gappe @ Vimlesh has been convicted under Section 364-A of I.P.C. read with Section 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act and has been sentenced to undergo the Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence and appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh has been convicted under Section 364-A/120-B of I.P.C. read with Section 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act and has been sentenced to undergo the Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default imprisonment.

3. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeals in short are that Rambaran Singh made a Gum Insaan Report on 24-10-2006, to the effect that his son Praveen and Jitendra had gone to attend the 13th day function in the house of Prakash Baghel and thereafter did not return back and he was under impression that they might have gone to the house of any relative but when they did not come back even in Diwali festival, then he searched for them but could not be traced, therefore, gum insaan report was lodged.

4. On 27-10-2006, F.I.R. Ex. P.14 was lodged against the appellants Gappe @ Vimlesh, Appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh and one Satpal Lodhi to the effect that during enquiry of gum insaan report, Rambaran Singh has produced a handwritten letter in which a ransom of Rs. 6 lacs has been demanded by Dacoit Raju Singh, who is lodged in Itawah Jail, for releasing the children. The statements of witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, the police received an information from Rambaran Singh, that the abductees have returned back. The police went to their house, send them for medical examination and took them to the place of incident. The appellants were arrested. After completing the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the appellants for offence under Sections 364-A/120B of I.P.C. and under Section 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act.

5. The Trial Court by order dated 20-1-2007 framed charges under Sections 364-A of IPC read with Section 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act and under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act.