Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shoyeb @ Kalu on 26 July, 2017
-1- MCRC No.2208/17
26.07.2017:
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.G.A
for the petitioner.
Shri Rakesh Vyas, learned counsel for
the respondent.
Heard.
Petitioner/State has preferred this petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.11.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.280/15 by Sessions Judge, Ujjain whereby learned Sessions Judge has reversed the judgment dated 30.06.2015 passed in Criminal Case No.385/13 by JMFC, Ujjain and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under section 25(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt through witness Sub Inspector Rohit Yadav (PW/3) whose statement has been supported by Head Constable Dinesh Singh (PW/2) and corroborated by other evidence adduced -2- MCRC No.2208/17 by the prosecution. It is further submitted that it is settled law that conviction can be based only on the evidence of the Police witness, therefore, learned appellate Court committed an error in appreciating the evidence of the prosecution and acquitting the accused.
Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the appellate Court.
Learned appellate Court considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution in para-10 onwards in the judgment and expressed doubt about the veracity of the documents produced by the prosecution. It is further observed by the learned appellate Court that father of the respondent has filed an application for production of his son alleging that the Police has arrested his son 5-6 days back from the date of the incident and when notice has been issued to the Police his arrest was -3- MCRC No.2208/17 shown by the Police and it is not a mere coincident. The doubts and observations expressed by the learned appellate Court find support in the evidence of the prosecution, hence it cannot be said that prosecution could prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the above, the appellate Court has not committed any error in extending the benefit of doubt to the accused. No ground for grant of leave is made out in this petition. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE hk/