Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Prem Narayan Judgement Given By: ... on 4 September, 2013
Author: B.D.Rathi
Bench: B.D.Rathi
M.Cr.C. No.11328/2012
04.09.13
Per B.D.Rathi,J
Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the
applicant-State.
Heard on admission.
This application for grant of leave to appeal has been
preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the
judgment dated 24/07/2012 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge,
Tikamgarh, in Sessions Trial No.239/2004, whereby respondents
namely Prem Narayan, Manoj Kumar, Vikram Singh and Akhilesh have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 452, 294, 307 or 307/34 and 325 or 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23/5/04 at about 9 p.m., when complainant Suresh Dangi was sitting in his house, respondent Premnarayan started filthily abusing him. Upon objection of complainant and his associate Bhan Singh, complainant was assaulted by respondent Vikram Dangi with an Axe, by respondents Akhilesh and Manoj with Lathis and by respondent Prem with a Luhangi. As Bhansingh tried to intervene, he was also assaulted and then Rakesh Ahirewar, Jai Singh etc. rescued them. Upon information at Police Station Prathvipur, District Tikamgarh, Crime No. 107/04 was registered and after investigation, charge- sheet was filed.
Learned Government Advocate argued that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to be interfered with.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Government Advocate, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were perused.
After considering the evidence of Dr.K.P.Nag (PW3), trial Court held that injuries received by Bhansingh (PW2) and complainant Suresh Dangi (PW4), were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and, therefore, offence under Section 307 of the IPC was not made out. That apart, the trial Court also found that there were material contradictions, omissions and exaggerations in the evidence of Bhansingh and Suresh Kumar and that contents of First Information Report (Ex.P/7) were also not proved from the evidence of complainant Suresh. Trial Court, in para 12 of its judgment, held that there was previous enmity between the parties as Bhansingh had also admitted in his cross- examination that one criminal case was pending against him with regard to causing injuries to respondent Premnarayan. Seized articles viz. Lathi and Axe were not sent for chemical analysis to Forensic Science Laboratory and there is no evidence on record to suggest presence of blood stains on the seized articles. Moreover, Independent eye-witnesses were also not examined by the prosecution. In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court. 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 judgment of acquittal in question.
The application, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
(and)