Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. FACTUAL MATRIX:

(A) Respondent No.2 Bhaggo Bai filed an FIR dated 31.1.1995 in Police Station, Ashok Nagar, mentioning her name as Madhav Bai stating that her husband Chatra died after falling during a spell of giddiness at about 11.00 p.m. In respect of the same incident, another complaint was lodged by Munna Lal (PW.2) along with Rannu Bai (PW.1), daughter of deceased Chatra and Bhaggo Bai, aged about 8 years stating that both the respondents-accused had murdered Chatra.

(C) Being aggrieved, both the respondents -accused filed Criminal Appeal No.262/1997 which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order and both of them stood acquitted. Hence, this appeal.

3. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State, has submitted that the judgment and order of the High Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The High Court has gravely erred in showing unwarranted sympathy towards the accused and dis-believed the prosecution case brushing aside the statement of Rannu Bai (PW.1), merely being a child witness and pointing out that there was contradiction in the medical and ocular evidence regarding the injuries found on the person of Chatra, deceased. The High Court further erred in holding that there was enmity between the accused Bhaggo Bai and Ramesh. At the time of death of Chatra, Ramesh accused was facing trial for committing rape on Bhagoo Bai; thus, question of conspiracy between the said two accused could not arise;

several cases were also pending in different courts between Munna Lal (PW.2) and his wife Kusum Bai on one hand, and Chatra and Bhaggo Bai on the other hand. Thus, there was a possibility of false implication of Ramesh accused. Chatra died because of a fall when he went to urinate, as he was suffering from giddiness all the time because he used to take `dhatura' and had become a Lunatic. Chatra used to eat soil etc. Rannu Bai (PW.1) though a child, was able to understand the questions put to her and her duty to speak the truth.

4. On the contrary, Ms. K. Sarada Devi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant interference by this Court against the judgment and order of acquittal by the High Court. The High Court being the first appellate court and the final court of facts had appreciated the entire evidence on record and came to the conclusion that it was not possible that Bhaggo Bai could have hatched a conspiracy with Ramesh accused for committing the murder of her husband Chatra during the pendency of the case filed by her against Ramesh under Section 376 IPC. Munna Lal (PW.2), his wife and son had also assaulted the deceased Chatra and Bhaggo Bai, accused and wanted to grab their property and so many civil and criminal cases were pending between them, his evidence cannot be relied upon. As per the medical evidence, it was possible that the injuries suffered by Chatra could have been received by fall caused by giddiness. More so, Chatra had become a lunatic and could not understand right or wrong. The testimony of Rannu Bai (PW.1), has been rightly dis-