Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dhaniram Sharma on 30 July, 2013
Cr.A. No.264/2010
30.7.13
As per B.D.Rathi,J
Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the
appellant-State.
Complainant Manisha Sharma, identified by her counsel Shri
Deepak Tiwari, is present in person.
Respondent nos. 1 to 4, identified by Shri Sanjay Soni,
Advocate, are present in person.
Heard on I.A. No.13950/12, which is an application preferred on behalf of the complainant Manisha, wife of respondent no.2 Rajkumar, for compounding the offences.
The offences under Section 307, 307/34 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") are not compoundable.
The application, therefore, stands dismissed. With consent, heard on the question of admission. This appeal has been preferred under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 31/3/09 passed by Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in Sessions Trial No.49/2006, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 307 or 307/34 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the Code").
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11/8/05, Dr. S.S.Dhurve, Medical Officer, forwarded a written intimation to Police Station Gotegaon, that Manisha, Wife of Rajkumar, had been brought at Community Health Centre, Gotegaon with the complaint that she was burnt while cooking. On examination, she was found to be carrying a pregnancy of 4 months and was 36 to 40% burnt. In her dying declaration recorded by Dr. S.S.Dhurve, she stated that her clothes had caught fire while she was cooking food in the night of 11/8/05 due to which her face and hands got completely burned. She deposed that she had no dispute with her in-laws. Learned Government Advocate, 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.
In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no evidence against the respondents. According to him, since the very inception, the victim has kept on reiterating that she sustained injuries while cooking. That apart, the victim has entered into a compromise with all the respondents and she, along with her child, is happily living with them and, therefore, judgment of acquittal is well merited and the same does not call for any interference.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, we have gone through the record of the trial Court.
On 11/8/05 when victim Manisha was examined by Dr. S.S.Dhurve for her burn injuries at Community Health Centre, Gotegaon, she clearly stated that she was burnt while cooking and that she had no dispute with her in-laws. Later, after 1½ months, on 23/9/05, one written complaint was filed by Ramadhar Sharma, father of Manisha and on that basis crime was registered against the respondents, but looking to the contradictions, omissions and exaggerations in the evidence of the witnesses and the statement of Manisha given to doctor, impugned judgment of acquittal was passed by the trial Court. Moreover, this fact cannot be ignored that the First Information Report, that triggered criminal law into motion, was not lodged by the victim herself, but by her father and that too 1½ months after the incident.
On perusal of the evidence and material available on record coupled with the factum of compromise, we fully agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court based on the proper appreciation of evidence on record.
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 order of acquittal in question.
The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI) JUDGE JUDGE (and)