Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Kumar Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2018
Author: Anjuli Palo
Bench: Anjuli Palo
1 CRA No. 2531/2010
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Division Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K.Gangele, Judge
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo, Judge
CRA No. 2531/2010
Manoj Kumar Shukla
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri V.K.Lakhera, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Shukla, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRA No. 438/2011
Santosh Kumar Shukla
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Amit Dubey, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Shukla, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRA No. 1125/2011
Virendra Kumar Shukla
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Amit Dubey, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Shukla, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRA No. 551/2011
Smt. Rani Devi & Anr.
Vs.
Pradyumn Kumar Shukla & Ors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for the appellant.
None for the respondents No. 1 to 4.
Shri Ajay Shukla, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 CRA No. 2531/2010
M.Cr.C.No. 04065/2011
State of Madhya Pradesh
Vs.
Pradyumn Kumar Shukla & Ors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ajay Shukla, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
None for the respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting : Yes / No
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law laid down :- -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Paragraphs : - -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(07/02/2018) Per : Smt. Anjuli Palo, J :-
1. All these cases arise out of judgment dated 29.11.2010 passed by the Special Judge, Sidhi (MP) in Session Trial No. 172/2004, therefore, are being decided by this common order.
2. Criminal Appeal Nos. 2531/2010, 438/2011 and 1125/2011 have been filed by appellants-accused Manoj Kumar Shukla, Santosh Kumar Shukla and Virendra Kumar Shukla, respectively to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence whereby appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs. 100/- and under Sections 308/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
3. Criminal Appeal No. 551/2011 has been filed by complainant 3 CRA No. 2531/2010 Smt. Rani Devi & Anr. and M.Cr.C.No. 4065/2011 has been filed by the State Government against the judgment of acquittal wherein co-
accused persons Pradyumn Kumar Shukla, Brijendra Kumar Shukla, Nagarjuna Prasad Shukla and Umesh Kumar Shukla have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them.
4. It is not in dispute that deceased Laxmi Narayan Shukla and Gopi Chandra both were brothers, who died due to fatal injuries sustained by them.
5. The prosecution case in brief goes to show that on 23.09.2004 at around 5:00 pm Rani Devi (PW-5) (wife of Laxmi Narayan) along with her daughter Draupadi were grazing cattle in their field. A boy came there and told them that Santosh Shukla alongwith other accused persons have cut a tree situated at Katotaha Hill. On hearing this Laxmi Narayan went towards Katotaha Hill saying that he will not allow them to take the tree. After sometime, hearing the hue and cry, Rani and Draupadi reached there and saw that all the accused persons armed with spear, sword, sticks were beating Laxmi Narayan. On hearing his cry for help, Gopichandra and Harishchandra (brother of Laxmi Narayan) rushed there to save him. The appellants-accused persons started beating them also. Rani Devi lied on her husband Laxmi Narayan to save him and sustained injuries as accused persons assaulted her. Due to 4 CRA No. 2531/2010 fatal injuries sustained by Gopichandra and Laxmi Narayarn, they died on the spot. When neighbors arrived, the appellants accused fled away from the spot. Harishchandra and Rani Devi went to the police station Bahri and lodged an FIR. Crime No. 20/2009 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w Section 149 and Sections 307 r/w Section 149 and Section 323 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed under the aforesaid Sections against the appellants and others before the concerned Court.
6. After committal of the case, learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149, 323/147 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. The appellant and the other accused person abjured their guilt and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant due to previous enmity. The learned trial Court has held the appellants Santosh Kumar Shukla, Virendra Kumar Shukla and Manoj Kumar Shukla guilty for committing murder of Laxmi Narayan and Gopichandra and convicted them under Section 302/34 and sentenced them to undergo RI for life and also under Section 308/34 for culpable homicide and sentenced them to undergo RI for 7 years. Remaining accused persons namely Pradyumn Kumar Shukla, Brijendra Kumar Shukla, 5 CRA No. 2531/2010 Nagarjun Prasad Shukla and Umesh Kumar Shukla were acquitted from the charges level against them.
7. Criminal appeal No. 2531/2010, 438/2011 and 1125/2011 have been filed by the appellants Manoj Kumar Shukla, Santosh Kumar Shukla and Virendra Kumar Shukla, respectively to challenge the aforesaid finding on the grounds that the learned Trial Court committed an error by relying upon the prosecution evidence ignoring the fact that the quarrel was sudden and not an act of premeditation. The testimony of, related eye-witnesses is contradictory. Rani Devi (PW-5)/complainant had not seen the incident. Some of the witnesses have not stated against the appellants-accused regarding their overt act. The medical evidence is also not reliable to establish the prosecution case. The injuries sustained by the deceased indicate that offence under Section 302 is not made out. It would fall under Section 325/34 of IPC. The appellants are liable to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them.
8. In Appeal No. 551/2011 and M.Cr.C.No. 4065/2011 the appellant-complainant Rani Devi & Kaushalya and the State Government have challenged the findings of the learned Trial Court whereby the respondents Pradyumn Kumar Shukla, Brijendra Kumar Shukla, Nagarjun Prasad Shukla and Umesh Kumar Shukla were acquitted by the learned Trial Court from 6 CRA No. 2531/2010 the charges levelled against them. It was alleged that the findings of the learned Trial Court with regard to respondents No. 1 to 4 are illegal and perverse on the face of record. The Trial Court ignored the testimony of the prosecution witnesses against the above accused persons. They are liable to be convicted along with other accused persons.
9. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the co-accused persons namely Pradyumn Kumar Shukla, Brijendra Kumar Shukla, Nagarjun Prasad Shukla and Umesh Kumar Shukla who were wrongly acquitted by the learned Trial Court. For the other appellants-accused, he contented that the learned Trial Court rightly convicted them for the offence levelled against them. There is sufficient and reliable evidence against them, hence prayed that the appeals against conviction be dismissed.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
11. It is not in dispute that Laxmi Narayan and Gopichandra both were real brothers. They died on 23.09.2004 on the spot at village Mohariya under Police Station Bahari, District Sidhi. FIR (Exh. P/11) was lodged by Rani Devi (PW-5) / wife of the deceased Laxmi Narayan on the same day within three hours of the incident. Eye-witnesses Rani Devi (wife of deceased Laxmi 7 CRA No. 2531/2010 Narayan) and Harishchandra (brother of deceased Laxmi Narayan and Gopichandra) both sustained injuries. The FIR was lodged by the injured persons promptly without any delay against the accused persons. Hence, the presence of Rani Bai (PW-5) and Harishchandra (PW-10) at the time of incident on the spot is found reliable. The FIR Exh. P/11 was registered against the appellant by L.P.Tiwari, ASI (PW-18) who established that the FIR was registered on the same date of incident. It ruled out any possibility to make concocted story against the appellant.
12. Rani Devi (PW-5) and Harishchandra are injured eye- witnesses hence, their testimony has great evidentiary value.
13. In case of Chandrasekar & Anr. Vs. State, 2017 SCC Online SC 620, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :
"Criminal jurisprudence attaches great weightage to the evidence of a person injured in the same occurrence as it presumes that he was speaking the truth unless shown otherwise. Though, the law is well settled and precedents abound, reference may usefully be made to Brahm Swaroop Vs. State of UP (2011) 6 SCC 288 observing as follows: Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone."8 CRA No. 2531/2010
[See also Muttaicose @ Subramani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2017) 8 SCC 598, Dinesk Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan (2008) 8 SCC 270, Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2009) 9 SCC 719, Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of MP (2010) 10 SCC 259].
14. Both the witnesses clearly deposed that they had old enmity with them due to land dispute since last more than 20 years. Rani Devi stated that on the date of incident, she was present on her field along with her daughter Draupadi (PW-6). They were grazing cattle. A boy came there to inform them that appellant Santosh and other co-accused persons had cut the Sendha tree. Her husband Laxmi Narayan (since decease) who was also present there, went to restrain the appellant from taking the wood. After few minutes, Rani Devi heard hue and cry. She went after her husband to the spot along with her daughter Draupadi and saw the appellant Santosh was armed with ballam, Virendra with sword and Pradeep with barchi. Other co-accused persons Nagarjun, Umesh, Shivkumar and Manoj were armed with sticks and lathi. They assaulted Laxmi Narayan. Her brother-in-law Gopichandra came there. He was also beaten by the appellants. She tried to rescue them but appellants also assaulted her with lathi and their shoes. Her husband Laxmi Narayan and brother-in-law Gopichand died on the spot. Both of them sustained fatal injuries on vital parts of their body.
9 CRA No. 2531/2010
15. Harishchandra (PW-10) also came there to save his brothers but was assaulted by the appellants. Rani Devi (PW-5) saw that Santosh inflicted injury on the eyes of Laxmi Narayan with ballam. Similarly, Gopichand also sustained fatal injury on his head by sword. His tongue was also damaged. He had several injuries over his body. Harishchandra also sustained several injuries.
16. Harishchandra (PW-10) duly corroborated the testimony of Rani Devi (PW-5). He broadly stated about the incident in which his brothers Laxmi Narayan and Gopichand were severely injured by the appellants. Harishchandra (PW-10) and Rani Devi (PW-5) stated that Laxmi Narayan and Gopichand both were died on the spot. Draupadi (PW-6), Akhilesh (PW-9), Adish (PW-8) and Kaushalya (PW-7) also came there. They all deposed they witnessed the incident as stated by Rani Devi (PW-5) and Harishchandra (PW-10). They all belonged to the family of the deceased persons. From the corroboration of their evidence, prosecution story inspire confidence.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that they all are interested witnesses, hence, their testimony is not reliable. But there is no restriction that the testimony of interested or related witnesses cannot be formed the basis for conviction.
18. In case of In case of Roop Narain Mishra Vs. State of 10 CRA No. 2531/2010 UP [2017 Cri.LJ 1487] has held as under :
"On the point of 'interested witnesses', the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Jagdeo, reported in 2003 Cri LJ 844 (SC) observed that only on the ground of interested or related witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded. Most of the times eye witnesses happen to be family members or close associates because unless a crime is committed near a public place, strangers are not likely to be present at the time of occurrence."
[See also Jodhan Vs. State of MP, (2015) 11 SCC 52].
19. In case of Arjun vs. State of C.G. [2017 (2) MPLJ (Cri.)
305), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :
"Evidence of related witness is of evidentiary value. Court has to scrutinize evidence with case as a rule of prudence and not as a rule of law. Fact of witness being related to victim or deceased does not by itself discredit evidence."
20. In our considered view, the related witnesses normally want to punish the real culprit. They do not want to save the real culprit and falsely implicate any other innocent person. Therefore, in the present case, the testimony of related eye- witnesses is more reliable. Their presence on the spot is also established during their cross-examination and by the testimony of other injured eye-witnesses.
21. On the same date of incident, Inspector L.P.Tiwari (PW- 11 CRA No. 2531/2010
18) sent the injured Harishchand and Rani Devi to hospital for their treatment and medical examination. Inspector N.K.Singh (PW-20) corroborated the testimony of L.P.Tiwari. He immediately reached the spot and prepared the spot map Ex. P/40). He seized blood stained soil and plain soil from the spot vide seizure memo (Ex. P/39). He also seized a log of sendha wood about 60 feet long and 40 inch thick. He also recorded statement of Kaushalya Bai and Braj Mohan Shukla on the same day. On the next day, he seized some pieces of clothes vide seizure memo (Ex. P/41).
22. Dr. V.B.Singh Baghel (PW-15) deposed that on the date of incident at about 9:00, he examined Harish Chandra and admitted him for treatment in surgical ward. His bed-head ticket was Exh. P/17. He found the following injuries on Harishchandra :
(i) Lacerated wound of size 4cmx2cmxbonedeep on the right side of the head.
(ii) Lacerated wound of size 3cmx2cmxbonedeep over the left side of the head.
(iii) Swelling over the left arm.
(iv) Lacerated wound on the little finger of the left hand.
(v) Lacerated wound of size 2cmx1cmx1/2cm over the ring finger of the left hand.
23. All the above injuries were caused by hard and blunt object within 24 hours of his medical examination. MLC report 12 CRA No. 2531/2010 (Ex. P/18) is proved by Dr. V.B.Baghel.
24. Dr. Yashwant Singh examined Rani Devi (PW-5). He found the following injuries on her :
(i) Contusion on left hand near vein of about 3x1/2 inch.
(ii) Contusion of about 6x1/2" on the left buttock.
(iii) Contusion on middle part of vest of size 4x2 inch.
(iv) Contusion over right side of chest.
(v) Contusion with swelling on left elbow.
25. All the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object as stated by Rani Devi (PW-5) i.e. lathi. The MLC report (ex. P/8) was not rebutted in the cross-examination. Therefore, the ocular evidence of injured eye-witnesses is also corroborated by medical evidence.
26. Dr. Yashwant Singh (PW-4) conducted autopsy of the deceased Gopichandra on the next date of incident. He found following injuries on him :
(i) Lacerated wound on forehead of about 10x1/2x1 cms.
(ii) Incised wound of nose 4x3x2 cms.
(iii) Incised wound on right side of head on parietal region of 12x3x1 cms.
(iv) Contusion over right ear pinna of 4x3 cms.
(v) Lacerated wound on back side of head of size 8x1x1 cms.
(vi) Contusion of about 8x11/2 inch at right side of ribs.
(vii) Contusion on right side of face of size 8x6 inch.
(viii) Contusion spread over left side of ribs of size 10x6 inch.13 CRA No. 2531/2010
Except the incised wound on the right side of head. All the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object. Incised wound was caused by sharp object. He further found :
(ix) Contusion between left cheek and left eye of size 9x6 inchs which were spread over left side of face due to which eyeball came out.
(x) Abrasion and contusion of size 4x3 cms and 8x6 cms respectively at right shoulder.
(xii) Contusion on left and right thigh of size 10x2 cms.
27. He also found following internal injuries on the body of deceased Gopichandra:
(i) Fracture on the forehead of 8x2 cms.
(ii) Fracture over right side of skull of size 10x2 cms.
(iii) Fracture over upper part of nose and forehead.
(iv) Fracture over right ear of size 4x3 cms.
(v) Fracture over backside of head of size 6x2 cms.
(vi) Brain membrane was damaged on all the above injuries tissues of brain were damaged.
(vii) Fracture on 4 th , 5 th and 6 th ribs at 90° angle.
(viii) Midlop of left lung was ruptured.
(ix) Membrane of upper parietal calcum was also ruptured.
(x) Arteries of heart were ruptured.
(xi) Left chamber of heart was empty and right chamber was half filled with blood.
(xii) Spleen was also ruptured.
28. Dr. Yashwant Singh clearly opined that all the injuries were antemortem in nature. Deceased died due to syncope of the injuries on his head and stoppage of blood circulation. Death was homicidal in nature. Injuries were caused within 24 14 CRA No. 2531/2010 hours of the postmortem. We find that the postmortem report (Ex.P/6) was duly proved by Dr. Yashwant Singh.
29. He also conducted postmortem of Laxmi Narayan. He found the following injuries on him :
(i) Swelling over his stomach.
(ii) Bleeding from nose and ears.
(iii) Contusion on right shoulder 15x3 cms.
(iv) Contusion of size 13x3 cms at right forearm with fracture.
(v) Contusion on left forearm of size 18x3 cms.
(vi) Contusion over right side of face along with lacerated wound of 4x3x3 cms with fracture in maxillary part.
(vii) Lacerated wound on face, at left side of maxillary part.
(viii) Lacerated wound over right side of upper lip of about 5x3x3 cms.
(ix) All the teeth were broken at upper jaw.
(x) Incised wound on right cheek of size 3x2x2 cms.
(xi) Contusion over lower side of right jaw of size 6x3x3 cms with various small factures and eight teeth were broken.
(xii) Lacerated wound on parietal region of size 8x3x2 cms.
(xiii) Lacerated wound on left parietal regions of size 7x3x1 cms.
(xiv) Contusion on left thighs of size 21x3 cms and 20x3 cms.
(xv) Contusion on right side of chest of 12x4 cms. (xvi) Fracture on right parietal region of skull of size of 8x3 cms and 6x3 cms.
(xvii)Fracture on the posterior part of the head of size 5x3 cms with raptured brain membrane.
(xviii)6 th and 7 th right rib fractured.
(xix) Right and left both lungs were ruptured, cavity was 15 CRA No. 2531/2010 filled with blood.
(xx) Left chamber of the heart was empty, right chamber of heart was full of blood.
30. Dr. Yashwant Singh also found blood collected in esophagus and stomach. He opined that deceased Laxmi Narayan died due to blockage of blood circulation and head injuries which cause syncope. He also died due to injuries over head, ribs, lungs and plural cavity. The injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. All the injuries were homicidal and antemortem in nature. Injuries were caused within 24 hours of the postmortem. Learned counsel for the appellants had not challenged the aforesaid facts of reports Ex. P/6.
31. In our opinion, Dr. Yashwant Singh substantially established the injuries of the deceased body. All the injuries caused to deceased Laxmi Narayan and Gopichand were sufficient to cause their immediate death in ordinary course. Therefore, the medical evidence and ocular evidence of related eye-witnesses Rani Devi, Kaushalya, Harishchandra, Adish, Avdhesh, Draupadi also supported the prosecution case against the appellants. We are not inclined to disbelieve their evidence on any account.
32. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that in the present case about 5 accused persons are involved in 16 CRA No. 2531/2010 committing the crime, but eye witnesses have not correctly described the incident as to who caused which particular injury on which body part and by which weapon. We do not agree with this contention. When more than one victim/deceased have been inflicted by more than one persons in the scene of occurrence, it cannot be expected from the witness to minutely describe as to which injuries were caused by whom and by which weapon. In the opinion of this Court generally in case of group violence or mob attack, it is neither possible nor expected from the witnesses to remember exactly who caused a particular injury to the victim by what weapons. Each person has a different type of memory or ability to explain the happenings or incidents.
33. In case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujrat reported in AIR 1983 SC 753 it was held as under :-
"(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
(2) ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. (3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
(4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the 17 CRA No. 2531/2010 main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. (5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment 1.1 at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time- sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on."
34. On the aforesaid ground testimony of natural eye witnesses cannot be ignored. Hence we find that the prosecution has properly established the involvement of appellants with the crime.
35. We do not find any material contradictions and omissions in the testimony of eye witnesses. The prosecution has examined Badri @ Magan (PW12) and Ugrasen (PW21) as eye witness. They are the resident of the same village. Badri @ Magan (PW12) has stated that on the date of incident at about 6.00 PM when he was returning to his house, he saw that appellants Santosh and Virendra and deceased-Laxminarayan and Gopichand and Ranidevi W/o Laxminarayan and appellants Santosh and Manoj were shouting "maro salo ko"
and the appellants started to assault them. In Para 3 of the cross-examination he deposed that only Manoj, Virendra and 18 CRA No. 2531/2010 Santosh were present on the spot and other accused persons were not present there. He turned hostile, but he partly supported the prosecution story.
36. Ugrasen (PW21) also deposed only against appellants- Santosh, Virendra and Manoj. He stated that appellants have inflicted Laxminaraya and Gopichand. He partly supported the prosecution case. He also turned hostile. The Court can consider such evidence of hostile witnesses for partly corroboration of the prosecution story.
37. Learned counsel for the appellants have contended that Santosh also sustained injuries. It is true that appellant-Santosh was also found injured by Dr. L.C. Gupta (DW1). He deposed that only incised wound was found on his sole of left leg 5cmx1/2cmx1/4cm, which clearly indicates that such injury is minor in nature in comparison to the injuries sustained by the deceased persons Laxminaryan, Gopichand and injured eye witnesses Ranidevi (PW5) and Harishchandra (PW10). There is no evidence on record that the members of the complainant party were armed with any weapon.
38. Inspector N.K. Singh (PW20) duly established that he seized a pointed iron rod according to memorandum (Ex.P43) of the appellant-Virendra from his house, which was in the shape of sword. Seizure memo Ex.P43 was prepared by him. 19 CRA No. 2531/2010 He also seized a Bamboo Stick vide seizure memo Ex.P50 as per memorandum Ex.P49 of appellant-Manoj. Further he seized a shirt (Ex.P55)of appellant-Virendra, which was worn by him at the time of the incident.
39. All the seized articles were sent to the FSL Sagar for chemicals examination and the FSL report (Ex.P70) reveals that blood stains were found on Bhala, which was seized from the appellant-santosh. In our opinion, the appellants were the aggressor. It is proved that they created the dispute after getting sendha tree and took it, which was objected by deceased- Laxminarayan. The appellants exceeded their limit and they used deadly weapons to kill armless/empty handed persons Laxminaryan and Gopichand. They also made an attempt to kill Harishchandra, but they failed to do so. They also assaulted Ranidevi (PW5).
40. All the facts including the number of deceased persons, number of injuries caused to them and the manner in which the appellants have inflicted injuries by deadly weapons to deceased persons, have clearly established the intention of the appellants to kill the deceased persons. Both the persons died on the spot. The act of the appellants falls under the Category- IV of Section 300 in the purview of "murder" punishable under Section 302/34 and 308/34 of IPC. Hence, the learned trial 20 CRA No. 2531/2010 Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for commission of aforesaid offence. Accordingly, CRA No. 2531/2010, CRA No. 438/2011 and CRA No. 1125/2011 filed against the impugned judgment of conviction stand dismissed.
41. The appellants, who are on bail, their bail bonds are canceled and they are directed to surrender immediately before the concerned trial Court to undergo the remaining part of jail sentence as awarded by the trial Court, failing which the trial Court shall take appropriate action under intimation to the registry.
42. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that appellants Vijendra, Nagarjun, Shiv Kumar and Manoj were not present at the scene of occurrence. They have been falsely implicated by the witnesses. By the impugned judgment, learned trial Court has acquitted Pradyumn, Brijendra, Nagarjun and Umesh.
43. In this regard the learned trial Court discussed the prosecution evidence properly from paragraphs 61 to 95.
44. It is settled principle of law that High Court has a limited power to interfere in the findings of acquittal. In the case of Gemini Bala Koteshwara Rao and Ors Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 2010 SC 589] wherein it is held that it is open to the High Court to reappraise the evidence and conclusion drawn 21 CRA No. 2531/2010 by the trial Court, but only in case when the judgments of the trial Court is stated to be perverse. The Apex Court explained the word "perverse" to mean against weight of evidence. Even though two views are possible as an appellate court this Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal mere because the other view was possible.
45. In the case of K.Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surendran [ (2008) 1 SCC 258] and T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2006) 1 SCC 401] wherein it has been held that when the judgment of trial Court was neither perverse nor suffered from legal infirmity or non-consideration or misappropriation of evidence on record. As an appellate court this Court cannot reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. The prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case against the respondents Pradyumn, Nagarjun, Brijendra and Umesh beyond reasonable doubt.
46. With regard to involvement of other accused persons namely Pradyumn Kumar Shukla, Brijendra Kumar Shukla, Nagarjun Prasad Shukla and Umesh Kumar Shukla, there is no merit to interfere in the findings of learned trial Court to acquit them. Accordingly, CRA No. 551/2011 and M.Cr.C.No. 4065/2011 filed against impugned judgment of acquittal stands dismissed.22 CRA No. 2531/2010
47. Copy of this order be sent to the Court below for information and compliance alongwith its record.
(S.K.GANGELE) (SMT. ANJULI PALO)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
Digitally signed by
SREEVIDYA
Date: 2018.02.07
14:52:28 +05'30'