SACHIN NAMDEO Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
LAWS(MPH)-2021-3-52
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on March 09,2021

Sachin Namdeo Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

VIRENDER SINGH,J - (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 04.04.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kotma Anuppur (M.P.) in S.T. No.61/2010, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under with the direction that the custodial sentences shall run concurrently JUDGEMENT_52_LAWS(MPH)3_2021_1.html
(2.) In this case, the allegations were made against 2 persons namely Rahul @ Chhotu and Sachin @ Ilu (appellant). Since Rahul was a child in conflict with the law, the charge sheet against him was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board.
(3.) The prosecution case may be narrated thus: (i) Gurucharan Singh, his wife Kanchan (PW2) and sons Gajendrabhan aged 13 years and Annu @ Indrabhan aged 10 years (since deceased) were living at Gate Dafai, Bhalumada whereas daughters of his elder brother late Anant Pratap Singh; Lalita (PW1) and Savita (PW5) were living at Vikas Nagar, Kotma. Annu alias Indrabhan used to come to their house in Vikas Nagar, Kotma. Maldhari Sharma and Vishnu Namdeo were their neighbours. All families were in good relations. Child in conflict with law Rahul is the son of Maldhari and appellant Ilu @ Sachin is the son of Vishnu Namdeo. They both were enjoying friendly relations with the deceased. (ii) It is alleged that on 10.04.2010, Rahul and Sachin hatched a conspiracy to extract money by abducting the deceased. In furtherance of their plan, on 12.04.2010, when the deceased came to visit the house of his cousins Lalita and Savita, they approached him at 1:30 pm and offered to play chess with them and started playing there. At 3:30 pm, they asked him to continue the game at the house of Rahul and took him with them. At Rahul's house, they asked Annu to stay there for 7-8 days stating that after receiving money of Rs. 20 lacs, they will release him. Rahul prepared a letter of demand for a ransom of rupees 20 lacs and also wrote another letter of demand of Rs. one lac. But Annu was not ready to stay with them and tried to go out of the room. He started making a clamour. The appellant locked the doors from inside and co-accused Rahul tied his mouth with a piece of Sari. Still, Annu tried to run away, then the appellant caught hold of his legs and co-accused Rahul tied a rope around his neck, as a result of which, Annu succumbed to death. Thereafter both the accused wrapped his dead body in a white cloth and concealed it in the lower shelf of the Almirah kept in the room, locked the doors from outside, the appellant buried the letter of demand of ransom in the courtyard of Rahul and left the place. (iii) At about 5:30 pm, Lalita (PW1) came to the house of Rahul and asked about the deceased. Rahul informed that he had gone with the appellant. She didn't take it seriously and asked Rahul to accompany her to the market and went with him to buy vegetables. When she came back home, her sister Savita informed her that the deceased had not come yet. Worried about him, both Lalita and Savita went to the house of Rahul and asked his grandmother Radha Devi about the deceased. In search of the deceased, they all went to the room of Rahul. The room was locked. Radha Devi asked about the keys. Rahul replied that the same are missing. Then she broke the lock, entered into the room and shocked to see the body of the deceased kept in the almirah with hands and legs tied up with a rope, mouth stuffed with a piece of Gamcha (scarf) and a piece of Sari wrapped around the neck. They immediately took out the body. Neighbours Ashish and Deepak Namdeo rushed to the hospital with the body on their motorcycle, but the Doctor declared him brought dead. (iv) Lalita (PW1) immediately intimated the police at 9:05 pm. The police registered Merg No.24/10 Ex.P/1 and FIR No.56/10 Ex.P/2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC against both Rahul and Sachin (appellant), called the witnesses Ex.P/4, prepared memo of corps Ex.P/5 and spot map Ex.P/3, seized articles from the spot used in the alleged crime Ex.P/18, sent the dead body for post-mortem at Community Health Centre, Kotma, Dr O.P. Choudhary (PW4) conducted the post-mortem and opined that the death was due to strangulation Ex.P/6. The I.O. R. Patel (PW14) recorded statements of the witnesses namely Lalita Singh (PW1), Kanchan Singh (PW2), Balak Singh (PW3), Savita Singh (PW5), Radha Devi (PW6) and others, arrested the appellant on 13.04.2010 vide Arrest Memo Ex.P/11, recorded his memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and based on the information given by him, recovered a letter of ransom from Badi (courtyard) of the house of co-accused Rahul and obtained specimen handwriting of Rahul. (v) The aforesaid letter and specimen handwriting were sent to the FSL, Bhopal. In his report Ex. P/16, Addl. State Examiner of Documents R.P. Pathak (PW15) opined that the handwriting of both the documents was of the one and the same person i.e. of co-accused Rahul Singh. (vi) After completing the investigation, the Police submitted the charge-sheet. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.