Source: https://taxkeeda.com/dauwalal-ganesh-devangan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshnow-on-15-march-2019/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:27:47+00:00

Document:
Dauwalal @ Ganesh Devangan & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) 2 High Court1 dismissing Criminal Appeal Nos.410 and 698 of 2000 as against the appellants.
Dauwalal @ Ganesh Devangan & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) 5 III. PW-4 – Narender, 11 years old son of deceased Parasram stated that he had seen 7 persons who came inside the house and then dragged his father out. After the father was so dragged out, the accused had assaulted his father. He did not name any of the appellants in the first part of the incident but the appellants were named to be part of the assembly which had assaulted his father outside the house.
“… … … every accused person is punished for one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 148, five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 450 and fine of Rs.1000/- each, and under Section 342 section 323 is included, therefore, accused persons are punished with life imprisonment under Section 302/149 and fine of Rs.1000/- each. In case of non-deposit of fine, additional simple imprisonment of 6 months is awarded to each of the accused person and in case of payment of Rs.20,000/- may be paid to the wife of deceased out of the fine received from the accused persons as compensation under section 357 Cr.P.C.
Dauwalal @ Ganesh Devangan & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) 6 All sentences shall run concurrently and period of judicial custody be adjusted from the period of sentence.” 7. Criminal Appeal Nos.410 and 698 of 2000 were preferred against the aforesaid conviction and sentence by 10 convicted accused and 7 convicted accused respectively in the High Court. Original Accused No.10, Birendra Kumar was found to be Juvenile on the date of occurrence and his case was accordingly separated. By its judgment and order which is presently under appeal, the High Court affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court and dismissed both the appeals. Thereafter, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.457-458 of 2016 was preferred by 9 convicted Accused in this Court. On 29.01.2016 this Court found no ground for interference with respect to 5 petitioners namely Kamta Prasad, Shankerlal Verma, Bharatlal Verma, Hariram Verma and Vinod Verma and dismissed their Special Leave Petition. However, as regards the present appellants, notice was issued whereafter both the sides were heard in the matter.
I. The appellants were not named by PW-2 Netram in his first reporting.
Dauwalal @ Ganesh Devangan & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) 7 II. However, in his examination in Court said Netram had named the appellants but did not attribute any specific overt act to them.
III. PW-3, Urmila, widow of deceased did not name the appellants in her testimony.
Dauwalal @ Ganesh Devangan & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) 8 the unlawful assembly. The prosecution did not allege that any of the appellants had stormed inside the house and had dragged the deceased Parasram. The presence of the appellant, at best, going by the version of PWs 2 and 4 was outside the house in the street where 25-30 persons had gathered. Out of such gathering, 17 persons were named to be accused and sent up for trial.
11. It is crucial to note that PW-2 Netram in his First Information Report had not named any of the appellants whereas in his statement in Court the names of the appellants did occur in his testimony. Even then he did not attribute any overt act to the appellants. PW-3 – Urmila also did not name any of the appellants. The evidence of PW-4 Narender did indicate some role but that part of the assertion is required to be seen in the light of the fact that he and his brother were hidden by their mother as soon as the first part of the transaction had occurred and some 7 persons had stormed inside the house. This is perhaps why the mother also could not name any of the appellants. In the backdrop of these salient features, the question arises as to the involvement of the appellants in the crime.
Dauwalal @ Ganesh Devangan & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) 9 the appellants. The appeals are, therefore, allowed and the appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. They be set at liberty unless their presence is required in connection with any other offence. ..………….……………J.
(Dinesh Maheshwari) New Delhi, March 15, 2019.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.