{"id":26175,"date":"2009-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009"},"modified":"2019-02-17T15:28:56","modified_gmt":"2019-02-17T09:58:56","slug":"bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Bablu @ Ballu & Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 10 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Bablu @ Ballu & Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 10 November, 2009<\/div>\n
                                               1\n\n                HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH\n                  PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR\n\n                        Criminal Appeal No. 1521\/2000\n\n                        1.      Bablu @ Ballu, aged 30\n                                years, s\/o Mohd.Khan, r\/o\n                                Indira     Nagar,     Tila\n                                Jamalpura, Bhopal (MP).\n                        2.      Habib aged 40 years, s\/o\n                                Mohd.Khan, r\/o Behind\n                                A.D.M. Slum Area, Idgah\n                                Hills, Bhopal.\n                        3.      Santosh Kumar, aged 20\n                                years, s\/o Raghuvir Singh\n                                Yadav, r\/o Police Lines,\n                                Shahjahanabad,     Bhopal\n                                (MP).\n                                                     ..........Appellants\n\n                                        Versus\n\n                        State of Madhya Pradesh,\n                        through   Police       Station\n                        Hanumanganj, Distt. Bhopal.\n\n                                                             ..............Respondent\n\n\n\nFor the Appellants:             Shri S.C. Datt, Sr. Advocate with\n                                Siddharth Datt, Advocate.\n\nFor the Respondent: Shri S.K. Rai, Government Advocate.\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nPRESENT:\nHONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA\nHONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S.A. NAQVI\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nDate of hearing:                05\/11\/2009\nDate of Judgment:               10\/11\/2009\n\n                                  JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Per: Rakesh Saksena, J.\n<\/p>\n
        Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment<\/p>\n
dated 19.5.2000, passed by II Additional Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No. 107\/99, convicting and sentencing
\n                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
the appellants as under:\n<\/p>\n
           Conviction                             Sentence\nAppellant No.1\n1. u\/s 397 IPC                        7 Years Rigorous imprisonment.\n\n2. u\/s 302 IPC                        Life Imprisonment and a fine of\n                                      Rs.500 and in default of fine,\n                                      further 1 month's RI.\n\n3. u\/s 25(1-B)(a) Arms Act.           1 years rigorous imprisonment\n                                      and a fine of Rs.500\/- . In default\n                                      of fine 1 month's further RI.\n\n4. u\/s 27 Arms Act.                   3 years rigorous imprisonment.\nAppellant No.2\n1. u\/s 397 IPC r\/w Sec. 34 IPC        7 years rigorous imprisonment\n\n2. u\/s 302\/34 IPC                     Life Imprisonment and a fine of\n                                      Rs.500\/- and in default of fine\n                                      one month's further rigorous\n                                      imprisonment.\nAppellant No.3\n1. u\/s 397 IPC                        7 years rigorous imprisonment\n\n2. u\/s 302\/34 IPC                     Life Imprisonment and a fine of\n                                      Rs.500\/- and in default of fine\n                                      one month's further rigorous\n                                      imprisonment.\n\n3. u\/s 25(1-B)(a) Arms Act.           1 years rigorous imprisonment\n                                      and a fine of Rs.500\/- . In default\n                                      of fine 1 month's further RI.\n\n4. u\/s 27 Arms Act.                   3 years rigorous imprisonment\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
2.     In short, the prosecution case is that Akeel (PW-1) and<\/p>\n
Zahid Miyan (deceased) were working as a servant and<\/p>\n
Muneem, respectively, of Riyaz @ Chhote Pahalwan.                     On<\/p>\n
18.12.1998, at about 12.45 p.m., they were going to State Bank<\/p>\n
of India, , Branch at Hamidiya Road, for getting a draft of<\/p>\n
Rs.65,800\/- prepared. Money was kept by Zahid Miyan in a<\/p>\n
bag.   When      they   reached   near     Gurudwara       Road,    some<\/p>\n
miscreants confronted them and one of them who had a
\n                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
‘Chhuri’   rushed   towards   Akeel.   Akeel   ran   away;   Zahid<\/p>\n
remonstrated with them asking why they were assaulting him,<\/p>\n
but, suddenly Akeel heard sound of a gun fire and on looking<\/p>\n
back, saw smokes and a miscreant with a pistol in his hand. He<\/p>\n
went to Bank and requested guard of the Bank to help, but he<\/p>\n
refused. He then telephoned to Chhote Pahalwan.         On going<\/p>\n
back, he saw Zahid lying injured on the road. Miscreants had<\/p>\n
snatched away his bag containing Rs.65,800\/-. He, Shakir<\/p>\n
Miyan, Hanif, Mukaddam and Liyakat carried Zahid Miyan in<\/p>\n
an auto to Hamidiya Hospital, but, by that time, he expired.<\/p>\n
According to Akeel, he was able to identify the miscreants.<\/p>\n
When police reached the hospital, he gave Dehati Nalishi<\/p>\n
Report (Ex. P\/1) to police at 13.45 Hrs. On the basis of Dehati<\/p>\n
Nalishi Report, the first information report (Ex. P\/24) was<\/p>\n
recorded at Police Station, Hanumanganj, Bhopal. Dr. C.S.<\/p>\n
Jain , Junior Forensic Specialist, Medico Legal Institute, Bhopal<\/p>\n
(PW-21) conducted postmortem examination of the body of<\/p>\n
Zahid and vide his report Ex. P\/25, found one firearm entry<\/p>\n
wound 10 cms. below acromion process on right upper arm.<\/p>\n
Size of entry wound was 3 x 3 cms. Wound was surrounded by<\/p>\n
abraised collar of irregular margins. Blackening and tattooing<\/p>\n
with scorching was seen at margins of wound.             Shaft of<\/p>\n
humerus bone was fractured. Dr. Jain sent the dead body for X-<\/p>\n
ray examination of the chest and right arm region of the body<\/p>\n
and on the basis of X-ray plates, he, besides fracture of right<\/p>\n
humerus bone, found at least 58 pellets present on the right
\n                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
arm, right lung, heart and lungs of the body. 3 rd and 4th ribs<\/p>\n
were also fractured.       The death of deceased had been caused<\/p>\n
by shock and excessive haemorrhage and was sufficient in<\/p>\n
ordinary course of nature to cause death.                 The death was<\/p>\n
caused by firearm and was homicidal in nature.<\/p>\n
3.   On 21.12.1998, accused Bablu @ Ballu, Habib and<\/p>\n
Santosh were arrested and on the information given by Bablu,<\/p>\n
on 22.12.1998 a red colour bag with a Katta, some cash and<\/p>\n
two applications for bank draft were seized. Accused persons<\/p>\n
were put up for test identification parade and after completion<\/p>\n
of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused<\/p>\n
persons and the case was then committed for trial.<\/p>\n
4.   Accused persons abjured their guilt. According to accused<\/p>\n
Bablu, at the time of incident he was present in the Court of<\/p>\n
First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in a criminal case.<\/p>\n
According to accused Habib and Santosh, alleged eyewitnesses<\/p>\n
of the case spoke against them out of enmity. Accused Bablu,<\/p>\n
in his defence, examined DW-1 Zahid @ Chand, DW-2 Mohsin<\/p>\n
Ali and DW-4 V.P. Paul. Accused Habib examined his wife as<\/p>\n
DW-3 Smt. Abda Bi.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Prosecution,     to   substantiate    its    case,    examined    27<\/p>\n
witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
6.   Trial   Court,    relying    mainly     on     the     evidence   of<\/p>\n
eyewitnesses Akeel (PW-1),        Shakir (PW-2), Riyaz Ahmed @<\/p>\n
Chhote Pahalwan (PW-3) and Sayed (PW-9) and the medical<\/p>\n
evidence of Dr. C.S. Jain (PW-21) and Dr. Dhananjay Sharma
\n                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
(PW-24), held the accused persons guilty and convicted and<\/p>\n
sentenced them as mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
7.   Shri S.C. Datt, learned senior counsel for the appellants,<\/p>\n
submitted that the accused\/appellants were falsely implicated<\/p>\n
due to enmity. Though alleged eyewitnesses Shakir (PW-2) and<\/p>\n
Riyaz (PW-3) knew the accused persons by name and were<\/p>\n
present at the hospital where Dehati Nalishi Report was lodged<\/p>\n
by Akeel (PW-1), yet their names were missing in the said<\/p>\n
report. According to him, it clearly indicated that the aforesaid<\/p>\n
eyewitnesses    falsely      implicated    the    accused      persons<\/p>\n
subsequently. The evidence of all the aforesaid eyewitnesses<\/p>\n
was not trustworthy. He further submitted that the recoveries<\/p>\n
and seizures of Katta, ‘Chhuri’ and currency notes were not<\/p>\n
incriminating evidence pertaining to the murder of deceased.<\/p>\n
The recovery of a bag and applications for obtaining bank draft<\/p>\n
were of no use as the same were not established to be the<\/p>\n
looted   properties.   Per     contra,    Shri   S.K.   Rai,   learned<\/p>\n
Government Advocate for the State, contended that the<\/p>\n
evidence of eyewitnesses was reliable and sufficient to hold the<\/p>\n
accused persons guilty of the offence. According to him, trial<\/p>\n
Court was fully justified in recording the finding of guilt<\/p>\n
against them.\n<\/p>\n
8.   We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and<\/p>\n
perused the impugned judgment and evidence on record<\/p>\n
carefully.\n<\/p>\n
9.   According to Akeel Khan (PW-1), he was working as
\n                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
Muneem (Clerk) of Idris Bhai (son of Chhote Pahalwan). On<\/p>\n
18.12.1998, in the noon, Idris Bhai gave him a form for<\/p>\n
obtaining a bank draft of Rs.65,800\/- from the Bank.        His<\/p>\n
colleague Zahid @ Phuppa (deceased) accompanied him<\/p>\n
keeping cash of Rs.65,800\/- in a bag for going to Bank.   When<\/p>\n
they passed from the front of Gurudwara, a boy suddenly<\/p>\n
appeared with a ‘Chhuri’ and raised his hand to assault him; he<\/p>\n
saved himself by bending, but it injured Zahid. Zahid asked him<\/p>\n
as to why he was assaulting him, but in the meantime one of<\/p>\n
the accused persons fired gun at him.     Akeel (PW-1) pointed<\/p>\n
out that accused Santosh was armed with a Chhuri and<\/p>\n
accused Bablu had fired. Both the accused persons scuffled<\/p>\n
with Zahid for snatching the bag. He got perplexed and rushed<\/p>\n
to the Bank and requested to the guard posted there to help<\/p>\n
them, but he refused. He went inside the Bank and made a<\/p>\n
phone call to Idris Bhai about the occurrence. When he came<\/p>\n
back to spot, he found Zahid lying injured.    He then carried<\/p>\n
Zahid to Hamidiya Hospital in an auto rickshaw, but doctor<\/p>\n
declared him dead. When police came to hospital, he gave<\/p>\n
Dehati Nalshi (Ex. P\/1). On 6.1.1999, in test identification<\/p>\n
parade (Ex. P\/3) he identified accused Bablu and Santosh. He<\/p>\n
did not identify Habib. He also identified the bag containing<\/p>\n
cash and the applications to State Bank of India for preparation<\/p>\n
of bank drafts. This test identification (Ex. P\/4) was conducted<\/p>\n
by Naib Tahsildar, Zulfikar Hyder (PW\/25).\n<\/p>\n
10.   Akeel Khan categorically stated that he had never seen
\n                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
accused Bablu and Santosh in the past. He expressed his<\/p>\n
ignorance to the suggestion put by defence that Bablu and<\/p>\n
Santosh had assaulted his brother Wakil, and his brother had<\/p>\n
lodged a named report. He stated that he did not know about<\/p>\n
the pendency of any such case, but, at the same time, he<\/p>\n
admitted that a case was pending against these two accused<\/p>\n
persons for beating his brother and he was also a witness in<\/p>\n
that case. However, in the next breath, he stated that he did<\/p>\n
not know whether he was witness or not. His evidence that till<\/p>\n
date he did not know the names of accused persons and that<\/p>\n
Chhote Pahalwan also did not inform him about the names of<\/p>\n
assailants, in our opinion, appears suspicious. It seems that he<\/p>\n
feigned ignorance about the names of the accused persons for<\/p>\n
some ulterior purpose. Spot Map (Ex. P\/2), which was drawn<\/p>\n
before him, bears the name of accused Santosh. He admitted<\/p>\n
that the Spot Map (Ex. P\/2) was drawn on his instructions.<\/p>\n
Mentioning of the name of accused Santosh in Spot Map (Ex. P\/<\/p>\n
2), which was drawn at about 5.00 p.m. on the same day, in our<\/p>\n
opinion, castes serious doubt on the veracity of his evidence<\/p>\n
that he did not know Santosh by name.            He deposed that<\/p>\n
except him no other person was present at the spot. The<\/p>\n
persons, who accompanied him in the auto, also did not know<\/p>\n
the names of the assailants, as they had not witnessed the<\/p>\n
incident and they had come at the spot subsequently.<\/p>\n
According to him, right from the date of incident till the date<\/p>\n
when   he   participated   in   the   test   identification   parade
\n                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
(6.1.1999), none met him who had witnessed the incident or<\/p>\n
knew the names of assailants.       According to him, Chhote<\/p>\n
Pahalwan (PW-3) was not present at the time of incident; he<\/p>\n
had come subsequently. He neither accompanied him in the<\/p>\n
auto nor met him in the hospital. He even did not see him at or<\/p>\n
near the place of occurrence while he was carrying Zahid in<\/p>\n
the auto. According to him, even on the next day of the<\/p>\n
incident, when he went to his duty at the place of Chhote<\/p>\n
Pahalwan (PW-3), there had been no talk about the occurrence.<\/p>\n
This appears to us extremely suspicious. Further Akeel denied<\/p>\n
that Bablu Khan’s shop of commission agency was situated at<\/p>\n
some distance from the shop of Chhote Pahalwan (PW-3).<\/p>\n
Contrary to it, Sakir (PW-2) testified that he knew the accused<\/p>\n
persons since last 8-10 years. Accused Bablu, in the past, was<\/p>\n
working as a ‘Hammal’ (labourer) and presently had a shop in<\/p>\n
the vegetable market. Bablu was running a shop there for last<\/p>\n
three years.     He deposed that Bablu was the President of<\/p>\n
‘Hammal Welfare Committee’ for last four years. Witness Akeel<\/p>\n
used to work as a Clerk in the shop of Chhote Pahalwan. This<\/p>\n
fact was reiterated by Riyaz Ahmed @ Chhote Pahalwan also.<\/p>\n
He too testified that there was a Broker Shop of accused Bablu<\/p>\n
in vegetable market, which was situated about 4-5 poles away<\/p>\n
from his shop.    He stated that there were onion and potato<\/p>\n
shops in front of the shop of Bablu and he (Chhote Pahalwan)<\/p>\n
also dealt in potato and onion business. Akeel and Idris used to<\/p>\n
go to recover money from the shopkeepers       having shops in
\n                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
front of the shop of accused Bablu. On analysis of the above<\/p>\n
evidence, it seems to us that accused Bablu was also known to<\/p>\n
Akeel (PW-1). Thus not naming the accused persons in the first<\/p>\n
information report by Akeel, in our opinion, throws a thick<\/p>\n
cloud of suspicion on his evidence. Consequently, his evidence<\/p>\n
is not reliable.\n<\/p>\n
11.   Sakir (PW-2), Riyaz @ Chhote Pahalwan (PW-3) and Syed<\/p>\n
(PW-9), who claimed to be the eyewitnesses of the incident,<\/p>\n
named the accused persons. Syed (PW-9) named only accused<\/p>\n
Santosh and Habib. According to Sakir (PW-2), when he was<\/p>\n
loading vegetables in the handcart in the vegetable market, on<\/p>\n
hearing hue and cry, he saw Santosh assaulting Zahid with a<\/p>\n
‘Chhuri’. There had been a scuffle between them and, in the<\/p>\n
meanwhile, accused Bablu fired a Katta at Zahid.     Zahid fell<\/p>\n
down then accused persons assaulted him with fists and kicks<\/p>\n
and snatched away his bag. Bablu and Santosh snatched the<\/p>\n
bag and accused Habib brought a motorcycle, on which all of<\/p>\n
them ran away.      According to Riyaz @ Chhote Pahalwan<\/p>\n
(PW-3),   when Zahid and Akeel were going to Bank, he was<\/p>\n
following them.    He saw Santosh pouncing over Akeel with a<\/p>\n
‘Chhuri’; Akeel ran away, then Habib, Bablu and Santosh<\/p>\n
surrounded Phuppa (deceased), Santosh inflicted an injury on<\/p>\n
his face, and Bablu and Habib snatched the bag from him,<\/p>\n
which contained Rs.65,800\/-. When Phuppa resisted, Bablu<\/p>\n
fired a shot at him. After the incident all the accused persons<\/p>\n
ran away on the motorcycle.    Sakir (PW-2) deposed that he,
\n                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
Chhotte Pahalwan and some other persons went to hospital<\/p>\n
taking the dead body of Phuppa in an auto. Akeel came later;<\/p>\n
he did not go to hospital with them. According to him, police<\/p>\n
was present in the hospital and he had informed to them that<\/p>\n
he had witnessed the occurrence. He had also informed the<\/p>\n
names of the assailants. It was around 1.15 p.m. when he<\/p>\n
narrated the incident to police. At that time, Chhote Pahalwan,<\/p>\n
Akeel and some other persons were also present there. This<\/p>\n
part of his evidence is contradicted by the evidence of Akeel<\/p>\n
(PW-1), who testified that there was nobody at the place of<\/p>\n
occurrence and that he carried the deceased to hospital in an<\/p>\n
auto and further that he did not meet any person, who had<\/p>\n
witnessed the incident or who knew the assailants. According<\/p>\n
to him, he had not seen Chhote Pahalwan at the spot or in the<\/p>\n
hospital.\n<\/p>\n
12.   When we turn to the evidence of Chhote Pahalwan<\/p>\n
(PW-3), we find that he stated that after the incident he went<\/p>\n
back to his shop as nobody was present at his shop. Though<\/p>\n
there was telephone at the shop, even then he did not inform<\/p>\n
anybody on phone because he was a patient of diabetes. He felt<\/p>\n
nervous. According to him, a Police Post was situated at the<\/p>\n
corner of vegetable market and it would have taken only 2-3<\/p>\n
minutes to go there from the spot, yet he did not go there<\/p>\n
because he was feeling bad. He gave his statement to police at<\/p>\n
about 4-5 p.m. on the same day at the spot, when police came<\/p>\n
there. He stated that he did not inform the names of assailants
\n                               11<\/span><\/p>\n
to Akeel because he himself knew them. Thus, the evidence of<\/p>\n
Sakir (PW-2) that Chhote Pahalwan (PW-3) went with the dead<\/p>\n
body to hospital, runs counter to the evidence of Chhote<\/p>\n
Pahalwan himself.\n<\/p>\n
13.   Another eyewitness, Mohd. Syed (PW-9), happened to be<\/p>\n
a child witness of about 12 years of age.   According to him,<\/p>\n
when he was going to meet his father, he saw three persons<\/p>\n
beating a man near the gate of Gurudwara. One person was<\/p>\n
assaulting him by fists and kicks, second had a ‘Chhuri’ and<\/p>\n
third was snatching his bag. According to him, these persons<\/p>\n
were accused Santosh and Habib.      Santosh was the person,<\/p>\n
who inflicted injuries to deceased by means of ‘Chhuri’. After<\/p>\n
the occurrence, all the three persons had run away on a Hero<\/p>\n
Honda motorcycle and he went to his father, who was present<\/p>\n
in vegetable market. According to him, there were 50-60<\/p>\n
persons, who had witnessed the occurrence. Since he was at a<\/p>\n
distance, he could not count the blows inflicted by ‘Chhuri’ to<\/p>\n
deceased. He had identified accused Santosh and Habib in the<\/p>\n
test identification parade.\n<\/p>\n
14.   On a bare perusal of the statement of this witness, we<\/p>\n
find that he did not say that any of the assailants was armed<\/p>\n
with a firearm and had fired at the deceased. The absence of<\/p>\n
this material fact of the prosecution story in his statement<\/p>\n
renders his testimony suspicious and doubtful, especially in<\/p>\n
view of the fact that he did not identify accused Bablu in the<\/p>\n
test identification parade. Apart from that, his evidence is
\n                                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
further belied by the evidence of Dr. C.S.Jain who did not find<\/p>\n
even a single injury by any sharp edged weapon on the body of<\/p>\n
deceased. His evidence, in our view, is not trustworthy.<\/p>\n
15.     After a thorough scanning and critical scrutiny of the<\/p>\n
evidence of the aforesaid eyewitnesses viz. Sakir (PW-2),<\/p>\n
Chhote Pahalwan (PW-3) and Mohd. Syed (PW-9), we find that<\/p>\n
their presence at the            spot was doubtful.   Had they been<\/p>\n
present at or near the place of occurrence and witnessed the<\/p>\n
incident, the names of accused persons would have certainly<\/p>\n
been mentioned in the first information report (Ex.P\/1), lodged<\/p>\n
by Akeel (PW-1). The absence of the names of the accused<\/p>\n
persons in Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P\/1) throws considerable doubt<\/p>\n
about their participation in commission of the crime. The<\/p>\n
evidence of Akeel (PW-1) that he did not know the names of<\/p>\n
accused persons was not reliable for the reason that he used to<\/p>\n
work at the shop of Riyaz @ Chhote Pahalwan (PW-3), which<\/p>\n
was situated at a short distance from the shop of accused<\/p>\n
Bablu and that he named accused Santosh in the spot map (Ex.<\/p>\n
P\/2).\n<\/p>\n
16.     The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
State that the bag snatched by the accused persons was<\/p>\n
recovered from the possession of accused Bablu, therefore, it<\/p>\n
was established that he was one of             the assailants, is not<\/p>\n
acceptable to us, as the recovery of the said bag does not<\/p>\n
appear     to   us   free   of    suspicion.   Mehtab   (PW-11),   an<\/p>\n
independent witness of the alleged seizure, stated that he and
\n                                  13<\/span><\/p>\n
the police officers remained out of the house from which Bablu<\/p>\n
had brought out the bag and that the house was already lying<\/p>\n
open. Though there was nobody on the first floor where the<\/p>\n
room was situated, yet there were tenants in the ground floor.<\/p>\n
Apart from that, the seized bag was though put up for test<\/p>\n
identification conducted by Naib Tahsildar, Zulfikar Hyder<\/p>\n
(PW-25), but, on perusal of his statement, it is seen that he did<\/p>\n
not say even a word about holding the identification of the said<\/p>\n
article. Yet another important aspect is that according to Akeel<\/p>\n
(PW-1), applications for Bank Drafts were given to him by Idris<\/p>\n
and the currency notes were kept in a bag by Zahid, but Idris<\/p>\n
(PW-4) did not say a single word about giving these articles to<\/p>\n
any of them. It is also strange that the applications for drafts<\/p>\n
were found in the seized bag when they were in the possession<\/p>\n
of Akeel. Akeel did not say that these applications were<\/p>\n
snatched from him or that he had kept them in the bag. In our<\/p>\n
opinion, for these reasons and in the absence of the evidence of<\/p>\n
the person, who conducted the test identification of the article,<\/p>\n
the test identification could not be held proved and in the<\/p>\n
absence of such evidence the identification of the articles<\/p>\n
before the Court cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
17.   For, the reasons stated above, we are of the view that<\/p>\n
prosecution   failed   to   establish   beyond   doubt   that   the<\/p>\n
accused\/appellants robbed the deceased and committed his<\/p>\n
murder. Prosecution also failed to establish the recovery of the<\/p>\n
arms from the possession of the accused persons. The finding
\n                                       14<\/span><\/p>\n
         of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court,<\/p>\n
         therefore, deserves to be and is hereby set aside. Appellants<\/p>\n
         are acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
         18.   Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          (RAKESH SAKSENA)                             (S.A. NAQVI)\n              JUDGE                                        JUDGE\n\n\n\n\nshukla\n                             15<\/span>\n\n          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH\n            PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR\n\n              Criminal Appeal No. 1521\/2000\n\n                 Bablu @ Ballu and others\n\n                        Versus\n\n                 State of Madhya Pradesh\n\n\n\n                    JUDGMENT\n\n\n                                  For consideration\n\n\n\n                                  (Rakesh Saksena)\n                                        JUDGE\n                                      __\/11\/2009\n\n\n\n\nHon'ble Shri Justice S.A. Naqvi\n\n\n\n         JUDGE\n       __\/11\/2009\n\n\n\n                                  POST FOR    \/11\/2009\n\n\n\n\n                                      (Rakesh Saksena)\n                                           Judge\n                                       ___\/11\/2009\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Bablu @ Ballu & Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 10 November, 2009 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No. 1521\/2000 1. Bablu @ Ballu, aged 30 years, s\/o Mohd.Khan, r\/o Indira Nagar, Tila Jamalpura, Bhopal (MP). 2. Habib aged 40 years, s\/o Mohd.Khan, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26175","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBablu @ Ballu & Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bablu @ Ballu & Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-17T09:58:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bablu @ Ballu & Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 10 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-17T09:58:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3038,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Bablu @ Ballu & Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-17T09:58:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bablu @ Ballu & Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 10 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bablu @ Ballu & Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bablu @ Ballu & Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-17T09:58:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bablu @ Ballu & Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 10 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-17T09:58:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009"},"wordCount":3038,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009","name":"Bablu @ Ballu & Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-17T09:58:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bablu-ballu-ors-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bablu @ Ballu & Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 10 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26175","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26175"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26175\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26175"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26175"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26175"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}