Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramgopal Maveera on 7 August, 2013
Author: B.D.Rathi
Bench: B.D.Rathi
Misc. Criminal Case No.2617/2011
7.8.13
Per B.D.Rathi,J
Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the
applicant-State.
Heard on admission.
This is an application for grant of leave to appeal under
Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Code" for short).
By the impugned judgment dated 24/12/10 passed by Sessions
Judge, Raisen in Sessions Trial No.114/10, respondent has been
acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC").
As per the prosecution story, on 8/4/10, Kaluram Sahu (PW1), Forest Guard, intimated at Police Station Salamatpur that when he, along with helper Himmat Singh had gone to extinguish fire in the Jungle, he found dead body of an unknown woman, aged about 35 to 40 years, between the Jungle of Baheda and Khoha and head of the body was crushed. On the basis of said information, Morgue intimation No.9/10 was recorded and after investigation First Information Report (Ex.P/19) was registered against unknown persons in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. Upon information given by Devisingh regarding missing of his wife, Balvir Singh (PW17), Investigating Officer , got the dead body identified to be that of Meera Bai from her husband Devisingh and daughter Reena. Dagger and a Yamaha Motorcycle were seized at the instance of the respondent vide seizure memos Ex.P/10 and Ex.P/11 respectively.
Learned Deputy Advocate General, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence and the judgment of acquittal deserves to be interfered with.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned Deputy Advocate General, we have gone through the impugned judgment.
The entire case of the prosecution was based upon the circumstantial evidence of last seen and the seizure of the weapon used for committing the offence. On going through the entire record of the trial Court, it is apparent that prosecution has failed to prove the circumstance of last seen. Forensic Science Lab report in regard to usage of seized weapon in committing the offence, has also not been produced by the prosecution.
We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court. It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.
Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view. As such, no interference is called for with the judgment of acquittal in question.
The application, therefore, stands dismissed in limine.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
(and)