Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Vikram Alias Bhikhari Judgement Given ... on 26 August, 2013
Author: B.D.Rathi
Bench: B.D.Rathi
M.Cr.C. No.4956/2012
26.8.13
Per B.D.Rathi,J
Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the
applicant-State.
Heard on admission.
This application for grant of leave to file appeal has been
preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
being aggrieved with the judgment dated 22/1/2012 passed by
Sessions Judge, East Nimad, Khandwa, in Sessions Trial
No.169/11, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13/8/11 Geetabai (since deceased) had left her house for Lakhangaon but did not return and next day, her dead body in an injured condition was found in the field of Vikram Rajput. Morgue intimation (Ex.P/2) was recorded, crime was registered and during investigation, it was found that she was having illicit relations with the respondent and on the same day, both had gone together to the house of Bhika alias Bhiku at Gopulapura in Village Lakhangaon and in the evening had left for Piplyaphool and, accordingly, were last seen together and in the same night the respondent was seen returning alone from Lakhanpura. Respondent was arrested and at his instance, weapon of offence viz. Axe was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/11). His clothes and other articles were also seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/12). After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
Learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and deserves to be set-aside.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Government Advocate, we have gone through the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.
Parasram (PW1), Anita (PW11) had testified that there were illicit relations between the respondent and the deceased. Prahlad (PW9), son-in-law of the deceased, was also examined, but the trial Court has found that the factum of last seen was not established from the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. Bheem Singh (PW2) and Mukesh (PW10) have also not supported the prosecution story. Prosecution also failed to prove the motive behind the offence. Weapon of offence viz. Axe was not seized at the instance of the respondent, but, it was produced by his wife and blood grouping could not be done as per the Forensic Science Lab Report (Ex.C/1). Prosecution also failed to prove any recent quarrel between the deceased and the respondent. In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
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 for grant of leave to file appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
AKM