Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Anil @ Annu Dixit on 17 February, 2016
1 M.Cr.C No. 5639/2015
(State of M.P. Vs Anil @ Annu Dixit)
17/02/2016
Shri R.B.S. Tomar, learned Government Advocate for the
applicant/ State.
He is heard on the question of admission.
On behalf of the State, this petition is preferred under
Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C for grant of leave to appeal against the
acquittal of respondent by the Sessions Judge, Vidisha in
Sessions Trial No. 177/2014 vide judgment dated 05.03.2015.
Applicant's counsel after taking us through the record of the Trial Court alongwith impugned judgment, by referring the evidence adduced by the prosecution, said that it is true that there is no direct evidence of the witnesses against the respondent and the circumstantial evidence with respect of incident has also not come on the record but there is a evidence on the record that before some days or the date of incident some quarrel had taken place with the respondent and deceased Balla brother of Raj Kumar (P.W.4) and on the basis of such evidence the Trial Court ought to have considered the enmity factor between the respondent and deceased and such enmity was clear cut motive in the mind of the respondent to commit the murder of Balla but the Trial Court has committed an error in not appreciating the exist evidence against the respondent and giving long interpretation of evidence, has extended acquittal to the respondent in the matter and in such premises, such acquittal is not sustainable and prayed for grant of leave to appeal against 2 M.Cr.C No. 5639/2015 (State of M.P. Vs Anil @ Annu Dixit) impugned acquittal, by allowing this petition.
Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, we have carefully gone through the record of the Trial Court, so also the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the exhibited documents alongwith impugned judgment. On the perusal of the record, we have not found any direct evidence of any witnesses against the respondent to connect the matter with the alleged offence. We have also not found any circumstantial evidence in respect of date of incident to show that respondent was involved or present at the time of murder of Balla. It is true that evidence come on record before some days from the date of homicidal death of Balla that some quarrel had taken place between the respondent and Balla on account of transaction of money, but we are of the considered view that mere on account of said quarrel, it could not be deemed that due to quarrel on account of such transaction Balla was murdered by the respondent. It is settled proposition of law that whenever in the available evidence and circumstances of the case on appreciation if two views are possible, then in such circumstances the Court is bound to adopt the view which is favourable to the accused and in such premises, the benefit of doubt for extending the acquittal also goes in favour of the respondent/ accused.
In the aforesaid premises, firstly in the lack of any appreciation of evidence, in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses connecting the respondent to the alleged murder of 3 M.Cr.C No. 5639/2015 (State of M.P. Vs Anil @ Annu Dixit) deceased Balla or in absence of positive circumstances to draw inference against the respondent, the respondent could not been convicted by the Trial Court and in such premises, the Trial Court has not committed any error to acquit the respondent. Even otherwise on appreciation of the evidence, the view adopted by the Trial Court for extending the acquittal to the respondent appears to be probable, so also in accordance with the existing legal position and it is also settled proposition of law that to replace another view at the view adopted by the Trial Court, the M.Cr.C or appeal could neither be entertained nor allowed, as such if the probable view has been adopted in extending the acquittal, the same does not require any interference either in M.Cr.C or in Criminal Appeal. Consequently, this petition is hereby dismissed.
(U.C. Maheshwari) (Sushil Kumar Gupta )
Judge Judge
Prachi*