Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of M.P. vs Onkar Singh And Anr. on 16 September, 2015
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE
Criminal Appeal No.781/1999
APPELLANT: The State of Madhya Pradesh.
Versus
RESPONDENTS: Onkar Singh & one another
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.S. Shukla, Panel Lawyer for the appellant-State. None for the respondents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(J U D G M E N T) Delivered on: 16.09.2015 This appeal is directed under Section 378 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.08.1998, passed by Special Judge, Sehore, in Special Case No.68/97 acquitting the accused/respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 427, 324/34 of IPC and 3(i)(x) and 3(i)(xiv) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
02. Short facts of the case are that on 19.07.1996 at about 5.30 p.m. the respondents abused the complainant, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste, by caste and committed 'Marpeet' with him. The complainant Vikram Singh lodged a written report at Police Station Kotwali, District Sehore. After due investigation, the respondents were charge-sheeted.
03. On the basis of the challan papers learned trial Court leveled aforesaid charges against the respondents, but abjured their guilt, hence, put to trial.
04. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and also exhibited documents Exhibits P/1 to P/8. During accused statements, the respondents denied all the evidence put-forth against them and also got exhibited documents Exhibits D/1 to D/4.
05. Learned trial Court after appreciation of the prosecution evidence acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid charges. Hence, the appellant/State before this Court.
06. On due consideration of the submissions of the learned State counsel and the evidence of record, this Court was of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal against the respondent Onkar Singh and accordingly granted leave to file appeal.
07. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of this appeal respondent no.2 Patel @ Purshottam had died, therefore, this appeal has become infructuous so far as it relates to respondent no.2.
08. I.A. No.7177/1999 is also available on record, which is an application for compromise between the parties along with affidavit filed by the complainant Vikram Singh in support of it.
09. Shri R.S. Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant- State submitted that impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is wholly erroneous in law as well as of facts. Learned trial Court committed grave error in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations without appreciating the material available on record in its true perspective. On other hand, the case of the prosecution was very well established by the star witnesses Vikram Singh (PW-1) and other witnesses.
10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the available record.
11. Learned trial Court after appreciation of statements of prosecution witnesses, i.e. complainant Vikram Singh (PW-1), Dwarika Prasad (PW-2), Prakash Rai (PW-3), Smt. Sugan Bai (PW-4), Smt. Lalta Bai (PW-5) and Smt. Chhapu Bai (PW-6) found that there is presence of material contradictions, omissions and exaggerations in the statements of these relative prosecution witnesses. Learned trial Court on the basis of these lacunae acquitted the respondents giving them benefit of doubt. After perusing the statements of the prosecution witnesses and other available record, it is crystal clear that the above finding of the learned trial Court is well based with sound the reasoning.
12. Learned trial Court also pointed out the admissions made by the prosecution witnesses and elaborately discussed the same in para 13 of the impugned judgment. The prosecution witnesses admitted this fatal fact that it was complainant Vikram Singh (PW-1) who wanted to encroach the land of Bhagwanpura Krishi Farm which was reserved for use of the villagers.
13. Any other material illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment as mentioned in memo is not found. The settled principle of law need not to be repeated that unless the judgment of acquittal is palpably wrong and grossly unreasonable interference in a case against acquittal, is not called for.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on its merit.
(SUBHASH KAKADE)
RJ JUDGE