Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Girraj Singh on 11 February, 2019
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Mcrc.48914.2018
[State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Girraj Singh and others]
1
Gwalior, Dated:- 11.02.2019
Shri Pratip Visoriya, learned Public Prosecutor, for
applicant/State.
The State of Madhya Pradesh, vide this application under
Section 378(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeks leave to file
appeal against the judgment dated 12/09/2018 passed in ST
No.324/2012; whereby, the Trial Court recorded the acquittal of
respondents for the charge under Section 302/34 IPC.
The prosecution was set in motion with the information (Ex.P/9) received at P.S. Ambah by SHO on 23/04/2012 from Civil Hospital as to that Rekha (since deceased) was brought by one Rajjan Singh in burnt state, whose statement (Ex.P/11) was recorded by Dr. M.R. Sharma (PW-6). The report resulted in recording of Dehati Nalish (Ex.P-17) on 23/04/2012 at 14:45 wherein it was stated by the victim that she lives in village Gunj Bandha and is illiterate and does household work and has two sons and one daughter. That her Devar (brother-in-law) Girraj, Devrani (sister-in-law) Shikha caught her and grandmother-in-law (Ajia Sasu) Bittibai poured Kerosene over her body and lit fire for not doing household work; they locked her in the room. On her call for help, her husband who was lying outside the house opened the room and other persons also came who doused the fire. Her entire body got burnt. Later, her father Rajjan Singh and Ramesh and others took her to hospital at Morena. That FIR (Ex.P/13) THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Mcrc.48914.2018 [State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Girraj Singh and others] 2 was recorded vide Crime No.165/2012 for offence under Section 307/34 IPC. Spot map (Ex.P/14) was prepared. MLC (Ex.P/10) was obtained. Dying declaration (Ex.P/11) was taken at 09:40 am on 23.04.2012 by Dr. M.R. Sharma (PW-6). That on 27.04.2012 it was informed by Dr. Yogeshwar, RSO Surgery Department, JAH at P.S. Kampoo that during treatment Rekha W/o Santosh who had 30 to 35 per cent burnt injuries succumbed on 27/04/2012 at 12 pm. Consequently, offence under Section 302 IPC was added. After necessary investigation, the challan was filed. The respondents abjured their guilt. Prosecution, to bring home the charges, examined 12 witnesses; however, none of them were eyewitness. Ramesh Singh (PW-7), prosecution's star witness, said to be present at the scene of crime, did not support the prosecution story. This witness also denied as to the statement of Rekha (deceased) (Ex.P/11) being recorded in his presence. He also stated that when his signatures were sought outside the hospital there was no thumb impression on Ex.P/11. Dr. M.R. Sharma (PW-6) who recorded the dying declaration (Ex.P/11) did not record his satisfaction that the injured was in a healthy state of mind. No certification to that effect was given, which was admitted by him in his testimony. In paragraph 5 of his testimony in Court, Dr. M.R. Sharma (PW-6) stated:
^^5- ;g vko';d ugha gS fd vkgr ds jDrnkc vSj ukMh fu/kkZj.k THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Mcrc.48914.2018 [State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Girraj Singh and others] 3 ds vk/kkj ij gh mldh LoLFkrk vkSj ekufld voLFkk ckor~ fu/kkZj.k fd;k tkrk gSA ihfMr efgyk esjs lkeus nnZ ls rMirh gqbZ voLFkk esa ugha ykbZ xbZ FkhA ekg vizsy lkekU;r% xehZ dk ekSle jgrk gS Lor% dgk fd izR;sd ekg vizsy esa xehZ gksuk vko';d ugha gSA eSaus iz0ih0&11 ds e`R;qiwoZ dFku ij Jhefr js[kk dh ekufld voLFkk ckor~ dksbZ Vhi vafdr ugha dh gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSus efgyk js[kk dh ekufld voLFkk ls larq"V gksus ckor~ igyh ckj dFku fd;k gSA eSus ijh{k.k ds le; vkgr efgyk js[kk dk jDrnkc ugha ukik FkkA EkSus ihfM+r efgyk js[kk dh ukMh+ dks Hkh ns[kk Fkk] fdarq vf/kd tyh gksus ds dkj.k mldh ukM+h o jDrnkc idM+ esa ugha vk ik jgk FkkA^^ (Emphasis Supplied) Thus, at 09:45 am on 23/04/2012 the victim had sunk or was critical. If that was her condition at 09:45 am, the prosecution owed an explanation of her being in fit state of mind at 02:45 pm when the Dehati Nalishi was recorded. Though there was enough time with the prosecution to have summoned the Executive Magistrate, but there was no plausible explanation therefor. The Trial Court found that the match-stick seized from the scene of crime as FSL report (Ex.P/23) did not have the trace of kerosene. It further found that the prosecution failed to establish as to 100 ml. kerosene when was left in the seized glass chimney; how much kerosene was there in it which could have been poured over the body of Rekha. All these major THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Mcrc.48914.2018 [State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Girraj Singh and others] 4 contradictions and omissions led the Trial Court disbelieve the prosecution story who found that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, it recorded the acquittal of respondents.
Though it is stated on behalf of the applicant that the Trial Court grossly erred in misconstruing the entire evidence; however, the analysis of cogent material evidence by the Trial Court when is tested on the anvil of the evidence on record, we do not perceive any perversity in the findings recorded.
Trite it is that in an appeal against acquittal the scope of interference is to the extent that an order suffers material irregularity, manifest error or illegality. In Muluwa S/o Binda and others Vs. The State of M.P. [AIR 1976 SC 989], it is held:-
"19. .... It is well settled that in the absence of an material irregularity, manifest error or illegality, the High Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal, merely because it thinks, that it would, sitting as a trial Court, have taken the other view of the evidence."
In Babu and others Vs. State of U.P. [AIR 1983 SC 308], it is held:-
"18. .......If the finding reached by the trial Judge cannot be said to be unreasonable, the Appellate Court should not disturb it even if it were possible to reach a different conclusion on the basis of the material on the record because the trial Judge has the advantage of seeing and bearing the witnesses and the intial presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is not weakened by his acquittal. The Appellate Court, THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Mcrc.48914.2018 [State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Girraj Singh and others] 5 therefore, should be slow in disturbing the finding of fact of the trial court and if two views are reasonably possible of the evidence on record, it is not expected to interfere simply because it feels that it would have taken a different view if the case had been tried by it. This Court in State of U.P. Vs. Samman Dass, (1972) 3 SCR 58:(AIR 1972 SC 677) dealing with a similar situation laid down the following postulates (para 32 of AIR):
"There are, however, certain cardinal rules which have always to be kept in view in appeals against acquittal. Firstly, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused which has to be kept in mind, especially when the accused has been acquitted by the court below; secondly, if two views of the matter are possible, a view favourable to the accused should be taken; thirdly, in case of acquittal by the trial judge, the appellate court should take into account the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of looking at the demeanor of witnesses; and fourthly, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The doubt should, however, be reasonable and should be such which rational thinking men will reasonably, honestly and conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy-though unwittingly it may be-or is afraid of the logical consequences, if that benefit was not given."
In view whereof, since we do not perceive any perversity in the findings arrived at by the Trial Court recording acquittal of respondents, we decline to cause any indulgence. Consequently, present application fails and is dismissed.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Vivek Agarwal)
Judge Judge
pd
PAWAN
DHARKAR
2019.02.13
18:25:02
-08'00'