Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Sunderlal on 22 August, 2013
Author: B.D.Rathi
Bench: B.D.Rathi
M.Cr.C. No.2192/2012
22.8.13
Per B.D.Rathi,J
Shri S.K.Kashyap, 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 5/12/2011 passed by Sessions Judge, East Nimar,
Khandwa in Sessions Trial No.103/11, whereby the respondent has
been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20/3/11 at about 6 p.m., when Deepak, Old Sarpanch and Dayaram were returning after litting the bonfire of Holi, in the way respondent, while abusing, pelted a stone on the head of Deepak. Next day, the matter was reported at Police Station Khalwa. On medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple and, accordingly, the offence was found non cognizable. Later when Deepak complained of pain, in the Hospital at Amravati, after C.T. Scan etc., a fracture was found on his head which was operated upon. As a result of the aforesaid injury, his right hand deteriorated and, therefore, offence under Section 325 was added and offence was registered. Respondent was apprehended and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
Learned Government Advocate submitted that the trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the judgment of acquittal deserved to be interfered with.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Government Advocate, we have perused the impugned judgment.
After appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court has held that prosecution had failed to prove the motive for committing the offence. Injured Deepak (PW1) had admitted in his evidence that he had not seen as to who had pelted the stone on him. The only witness who had seen that stone was pelted by respondent is Bajiram (PW3) but his testimony was disbelieved by the trial Court on the ground that his presence on the spot was not mentioned in the First Information Report (Ex.P/1). In the aforesaid premises, the judgment of acquittal was passed.
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)