Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Garu @Guru Pardi on 26 March, 2019
Author: Anjuli Palo
Bench: Anjuli Palo
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Division Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice J.K.Maheshwari
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo
MCRC No. 12821/2017
State of Madhya Pradesh
Vs.
Garu @ Guru Pardi and Ors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the appellant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(26/03/2019) Per : Smt. Anjuli Palo, J :-
The State has filed this petition seeking leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 11.05.2017 in Sessions Case No.1067/2015 passed by 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal acquitting the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 264/149, 201/149, 120-B/149 of Indian Panel Code.
2. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 03.03.2015 at about 11:45 pm near Kaliyasot Dam at Naya Basera, the respondents were assembled with the arms to make unlawful assembly with intention to kill Rajesh Sapera. They offered liquor to Rajesh Sapera then pushed him into Kaliyasot Dam, due to which he died on the spot. When the matter was reported to the Police Station- Kamla Nagar 2 MCRC No.12821/2017 police started investigation and registered crime under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 364/34 of IPC against the respondents and filed charge-sheet before the concerned Court.
3. After committal, learned trial Court framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 364/149, 201/149 and 120-B/149 of IPC against the respondents. They abjured guilt and pleaded their innocence. No defence witnesses have been examined by the respondents.
4. After considering the evidence available on record learned trial Court acquitted all the accused persons from the charges levelled against them. Learned trial Court has also held that the chain of circumstantial evidence has not been established against the respondents, beyond reasonable doubt.
5. Petitioner/State has challenged the findings and seeking leave on the grounds that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence. Findings of the trial Court are incorrect, improper and bad in law. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective to give undue weightage to the minor omissions and contradictions, hence judgment of acquittal of the respondents may be set aside and they may be convicted for committing offences under Sections 302/149, 364/149, 201/149 and 120-B/149 of IPC
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is not in dispute that the prosecution case is based on 3 MCRC No.12821/2017 circumstantial evidence, having is no eye witness to the incident. In a case of circumstantial evidence it is essential to prove complete chain of circumstances by prosecution bringing cogent evidence. Some golden rules have been prescribed in this regard in the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra 1984 AIR 1622. In case of Satpal Vs. State of Haryana 2018 6 SCC 610 it has been held that to sustain conviction on basis of circumstantial evidence requirements of all links in the chain of circumstances must be complete leading only to hypothesis of guilt of accused. If there are any missing links in the chain of circumstances and possibility of innocence cannot be ruled out, benefit of doubt must be given by acquittal.
8. In the case of Navaneethakrishnan Vs. State by Inspector of Police 2018 16 SCC 161 has held as under:-
"The law is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. In a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. When the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot, in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take 4 MCRC No.12821/2017 the place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. There is a long mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. The Court in mindful of caution by the settled principles of law and the decisions rendered by this Court that in a given case like this, where the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must place and prove all the necessary circumstances, which would constitute a complete chain without a snap and pointing to the hypothesis that except the accused, no one had committed the offence, which in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove."
9. In the light of above principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the circumstantial evidence in the present case, there is no evidence to establish that someone has intentionally cause death of the decease, because Dr. Rajendra Barav (PW-10) conducted the postmortem of the deceased. He had not found any internal or external injury on the body of the deceased nor found presence of any poisonous substance in his viscera. Dr. Rajendra Barav (PW-10) did not give any definite opinion about the cause of death of the deceased.
10. Further, the testimony of Resham Bai (PW-6) and Sita Bai (PW-
7) is contradictory. The prosecution has failed to establish the circumstance of "last seen together". Police recorded their statements after 5 or 6 months from the incident. They stated that on 03.03.2015 the respondents have come to the house of Rajesh Sapera (deceased) and assaulted him and took him with them. But, they did not lodge any report to the police about the incident prior to deposing to Police. 5 MCRC No.12821/2017
Their conduct is quite unnatural and do not seems to be trust worthy. Their testimony is full of contradiction and omission and it is also contradictory with the medical report. In the facts the evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt, establishing complete chain of circumstances to bring the charge at home.
11. We find that there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, interference is not warranted in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, this petition seeking leave to appeal stands dismissed. Leave as prayed stands refused.
(J.K.MAHESHWARI) (SMT. ANJULI PALO)
JUDGE JUDGE
shabana
Digitally signed by
SHABANA ANSARI
Date: 2019.03.28
16:45:35 +05'30'