The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in a plea against the acquittal of three persons by the Madhya Pradesh High Court who were convicted and sentenced in a case of kidnapping for ransom and under Section 11/13 of the MP Dakaiti Air Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981.
A two-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh has sought the response of State of Madhya Pradesh, and acquitted person i.e. Jagdish, Harkanth and Harnam Singh, and stayed the order of compensation to be paid by complainant to the convicted person on account of their false implication.
A SLP was filed by petitioner Govind Singh and his son Vijay Singh Rajawat being aggrieved by the order dated 09.11.2021 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench wherein the HC allowed the acquittal of the accused (Respondent 2 Jagdish, Respondent 3 Harkanth & Respondent 4 Harnam Singh) after paying them compensation in a case U/S 364A of I.P.C. R/w Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.
The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the High Court had failed to appreciate that there’s negligence in the part of prosecution but never said that they have given false evidence; on the contrary, the High Court had also observed that the petitioners were not examined by police.
The High Court had held that prosecution had failed to prove that Govind Singh, Vijay Singh and Bablu Yadav were ever abducted by Harkanth and Harnam Singh. Further, the prosecution has also failed to prove that any demand of Rs 10 lakh ransom was ever made and has also failed to prove that the said amount was paid by Govind Singh.
In view of the clear findings, the High Court had set aside the conviction of the accused persons Jagdish, Harkanth and Harnam Singh by the trial court where in Jagdish was convicted for seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 412 of the IPC, Harnam and Harkanth were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 364A of IPC read with Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.
The High Court had further noted that Harnam and Harkanth spent 12 years in jail and Jagdish also spent six months in jail on the basis of false evidence and concocted documents. Along with the acquittal, the High Court had also held that Jagdish, Harkanth and Harnam Singh are entitled for compensation for violation of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court had held that the fundamental rights of the accused Jagdish, Harnam Singh and Harkanth have been deliberately violated by the prosecution with oblique intentions, as Harnam Singh and prosecution witnesses Govind Singh and Aafaq Ahmed Siddique are the employees of the same department, and a suggestion was also given to Govind Singh that there is a dispute regarding non-payment of salary to Harnam Singh, therefore, a false case has been concocted.
The High Court stated, “A person is also entitled to seek compensation for his malicious prosecution under Civil Law. Life and Liberty of a person is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Every acquittal may not attract Article 21 of Constitution of India warranting payment of compensation under Public Law, but where the Constitutional Court comes to a conclusion that the accused/ appellant was deliberately and was falsely implicated with oblique motives, as a result he has remained in jail for considerable period, then it can be safely said that the fundamental right of the appellant were blatantly violated.”
Furthermore, it noted, “Being the custodian of Fundamental Rights of the Citizens of this Country, this Court would be failing in its Constitutional duty to protect the fundamental rights of innocent person, if the appellants are not compensated in terms of money for blatant violation of their Fundamental Rights.” It directed, the State to pay compensation of Rs 1 lakh to Jagdish and Rs 3 lakh each to Harnam Singh and Harkanth on account of their wrong incarceration.
Facts of the case mentioned in the High Court order:
On 24-2-2009, Petitioner No 1 Govind Singh, his son Petitioner No.2 Vijay Singh and Bablu were going back to Shivpuri from Sindh River on motorcycles. They were waylaid by four miscreants who had guns and asked them to stop and they were taken into the forest. Vijay Singh was instructed to talk to his family members from his mobile. Accordingly, information of abduction was given to Afaq Ahmed and the employees of the forest department gathered. They went to the house of Govind Singh and later on, FIR was lodged by Afaq Ahmed Siddique which was registered as Crime No.48/2009.
Govind Singh was released by his abductors with an instruction that he should wait for further instructions and phone. The recovery memo of Govind Singh was prepared on 26-2-2009. Thereafter, an information was received by Govind Singh, that an amount of Rs 10,00,000 be paid for the release of Vijay Singh and Bablu and accordingly, Govind Singh, paid said amount and Vijay Singh and Bablu were also released and their recovery memo dated 6-3-2009 was prepared. The appellants of the case were arrested and the money was seized from them.
The petitioners contended that the Trial Court has correctly appreciated all the evidences & convicted Respondent 4 Harnam Singh and Respondent 3 Harkanth U/S 364A of I.P.C. R/w Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs 1,000 in default 3 months RI and Respondent 2 Jagdish U/S 412 of IPC with 7 years RI and fine of Rs 1,000 in default 3 months RI.
The High Court observed that
• Confessional statements of Harkanth are forged and were prepared at a later stage and that none of the witnesses has corroborated the evidence of each other.
• Petitioners failed to prove that they were ever abducted by Harkanth & Harnam Singh.
• Petitioners failed to prove that any demand of ransom amount of Rs 10 lakh was ever made and has also failed to prove that the said amount was paid by them.
• Petitioners failed to prove that Vijay Singh and Bablu Yadav were released only after payment of ransom amount and the story of the ransom was fabricated due to conflict in the date of getting a statement from Govind Singh.
• Petitioners failed to prove that from which source the amount of Rs 10 lakh was arranged by Govind Singh and how he came to know about the time and place, where ransom was to be paid.