Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ambaram And Anr. on 26 June, 2014
M.Cr.C. No.642/2014 26.06.2014
Shri RS Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.
Heard.
This application under section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file appeal has been filed against the non-applicants, who were acquitted by the Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.410/2012 vide order dated 29.06.2013 for having committed offence under section 326, 326/34 and 294 of IPC.
We have heard the submission made on behalf of the learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State and have also perused the record including the judgment delivered by the trial Court.
The trial Court acquitted the non-applicants and made the following observation in particular paragraphs 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42, which are reproduced here as under:-
38& orZeku ekeys eas tks lk{; vk;h gS] mlls ;g Li"V gS fd Qfj;knh] vfHk;qDr vackjke dks vius ;gka dke djus ds fy;s cyiwoZd vius lkFk idM+dj ?klhVrs gq,] ys tk jgk Fkk A ,slh fLFkfr eas vackjke dks rFkk mlds iq= vfHk;qDr ykyk dks 'kjhj dh izk;osV izfrj{kk ds vf/kdkj izkir gks x;s Fks A 39& vr% rdZ ds fy;s ;fn ;g eku Hkh fy;k tk;s fd vfHk;qDr ykyk us ?kVuk ds le; Qfj;knh ds lkFk ekjihV dh vkSj mls migfr dkfjr dh rc Hkh mlds }kjk fn;k x;k d`R; vackjke ds 'kjhj ij izHkko Mkyus okys vijk/k ds fo:) izk;osV izfrj{kk ds vf/kdkj ds :i eas ekuk tk;sxk A 40& bl izdkj] vfHk;kstu lk{; ls gh ;g izdV gks jgk gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk Qfj;knh dks ?kksj migfr dkfjr djus dk lkekU; vk'k; cuk;k tkuk vkSj mlds vxzlj.k eas gh Qfj;knh dks ?kksj migfr dkfjr fd;k tkuk lansg dh ifjf/k eas gS A lkFk gh] ;g Hkh laHkkouk izdV gks jgh gS fd vfHk;qDr x.k us 'kjhj ds izk;osV izfrj{kk ds vf/kdkj ds iz;ksx eas Qfj;knh dks laHkor% ?kksj migfr dkfjr dh gks A muds }kjk Qfj;knh dks LosPN;k ?kksj migfr dkfjr fd;k tkuk izekf.kr ugha gks jgk gS A 41& vfHk;kstu ds fdlh Hkh lk{kh us vius dFku eas ;g ugha crk;k gS fd ?kVuk ds le; vfHk;qDrx.k us dksbZ v'yhy 'kCn ? kVuk LFky ij mPpkfjr fd;s A vr% vfHk;kstu lk{; ls ;g izekf.kr ugha gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k us yksd LFky ij vFkok mlds fudV Qfj;knh dks v'yhy xkfy;ka nsdj mls ;k lquusokyksa dks {kksHk dkfjr fd;k A 42& mijksDr foospu ls ;g fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd vfHk;kstu leLr ;qfDr;qDr 'kadkvksa ls ijs ;g izekf.kr djus eas lQy ugha gks ldk gS fd ?kVuk ds le; vfHk;qDrx.k us Qfj;knh esgjckuflag dks ?kksj migfr dkfjr djus dk lkekU; vk'k; cuk;k] ftlds vxzlj.k eas eksgu us ydM+h ls ekjdj vkSj vfHk;qDr ykyk us ikbZi ls ekjdj Qfj;knh dks LosPN;k ?kksj migfr dkfjr dh rFkk yksd LFky ij ;k mlds fudV v'yhy xkfy;ka nsdj Qfj;knh ;k lquusokyksa dks {kksHk dkfjr fd;k A We are of the considered view that acquittal of the non- applicant is on account of deficiency of evidence and contradictions in the statements of witnesses, which did not make out a case of the prosecution against the non-applicants beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed. C.c. as per rules.
(Shantanu Kemkar) (M.C. Garg)
Judge Judge
Kratika/