Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 98 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Rambagas

2000-02-01

RAJEEV GUPTA, USHA SHUKLA

body2000
This judgment shall govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 454/88 also. as both these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 23.6.1987. passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge. Bilaspur in Sessions Trial Nos. 168/86 and 169/86. whereby all the four accused persons were acquitted of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34, of the IPC. Since. we are affirming the findings and the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. we deem it quite unnecessary to reproduce the details of the prosecution case. which are contained in paras 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment. and it would suffice to say that all the four respondents accused persons were put to trial on the charges under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, for the commission of murders of Latel and Soukhilal by strangulating them to death on 30.5.1986. The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false Implication. At the trial. prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses for establishing the above charges against the accused persons. whereas the accused persons did not examine any witness in their defence. Of the 13 witnesses examined by the prosecution Dukhni Bai (PW 1) and Triveni Bai (PW 2) deposed as eye-witnesses of the incident of murders of Latel and Soukhilal. In the First Information Report. lodged by village Kotwar Sumirandas (PW 4). no one much less the accused persons were named as the assailants of deceased Latel and Soukhilal. The trial Court. on a close scrutiny of the evidence of eye-witnesses Dukhni Bai (PW 1) and Triveni Bai (PW 2). found that during the course of investigation in their case-diary statements. they had not projected themselves as eye-witnesses of the incident of murders of Latel and Soukhilal. The trial Court. on considering the improvements made by these two witnesses in their deposition in the Court on their case-diary statements. found it quite unsafe to place any reliance on their evidence and. therefore, discarded their evidence altogether. The evidence of the remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution by itself was not found sufficient for establishing the complicity of the accused persons in the crime. On the above findings. the trial Court recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal of the respondents accused persons. Shri S.K. Gangrade. the learned Panel Lawyer. therefore, discarded their evidence altogether. The evidence of the remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution by itself was not found sufficient for establishing the complicity of the accused persons in the crime. On the above findings. the trial Court recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal of the respondents accused persons. Shri S.K. Gangrade. the learned Panel Lawyer. vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of eye-witnesses Dukhni Bai (PW1) and Triveni Bai (PW 2). who have categorically deposed that all the four respondents accused persons had committed murders of deceased Latel and Soukhilal. The learned Panel Lawyer further submitted that the evidence of the other witnesses examined by the prosecution further corroborates the eye-witness account of Dukhni Bai (PW 1) and Triveni Bai (PW 2). Shri Surendra Singh, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. on the other hand supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and contended that the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to the acquittal of the respondents accused persons being based on the evidence on record do not call for any interference in this appeal against acquittal. In the First Information Report. lodged by the village Kotwar. no one was named as the assailants of deceased Latel and Soukhilal. The absence of the names of the accused persons in the First Information Report clearly goes to show that no one, much less Dukhni Bai (PW 1) and Triveni Bai (PW 2), had witnessed the commission of murders of Latel and Soukhilal or else the names of the accused persons would have been mentioned in the First Information Report lodged by the village Katwar, which obviously must have been lodged after collecting all the relevant information from all the concerned persons. Dukhni Bai (PW 1) and Triveni Bai (PW 2) are mother and widow of deceased Soukhilal respectively. They could not give any cogent explanation in regard to the material omissions in their case-diary statements Ex. D-1 and Ex. D-2 respectively. of the facts that they had witnessed the commission of murder of deceased Latel and Soukhilal and that the respondents accused persons were their assailants. Thus it is apparent that Dukhni Bai (PW 1) and Triveni Bai (PW 2) have for the first time deposed in the Court as eye-witnesses of the incident of murders of Latel and Soukhilal. of the facts that they had witnessed the commission of murder of deceased Latel and Soukhilal and that the respondents accused persons were their assailants. Thus it is apparent that Dukhni Bai (PW 1) and Triveni Bai (PW 2) have for the first time deposed in the Court as eye-witnesses of the incident of murders of Latel and Soukhilal. In our considered view the trial Court has not committed any illegality in discarding the evidence of Dukhni Bai (PW 1) and Triveni Bai (PW 2). who are close relatives of deceased Soukhilal and Latel. altogether. The evidence of the remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution does not take the prosecution case against the accused persons any further. as the learned Panel Lawyer could not point out any clinching incriminating circumstance against the accused persons. On considering the entire evidence on record. we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to the acquittal of the respondents accused persons do not suffer from any such illegality or infirmity which may necessitate interference by this Court in this appeal against acquittal. The view taken by the trial Court. on the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial. cannot be said to be unreasonable or impossible. In this view of the matter. we do not find any scope for interference in this appeal. For the foregoing reasons. the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court of the respondents accused persons, of the charges under Section 302 read with 34. of the IPC. for the commission of murders of Latel and Soukhilal. is hereby affirmed. The respondents accused persons are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the record of Criminal Appeal No. 454\1988.