Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 917 (MP)

Salram v. Shale Singh

2001-12-05

RAJEEV GUPTA, UMANATH SINGH

body2001
ORDER 1. This is complainant's revision petition against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 24.5.2001 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Sessions Trial No. 488/2000, whereby respondents-accused persons Bhole Singh, Hira Singh and Kalloo Singh @ Ajit Singh were acquitted of the charges under sections 307, 323 and 506B read with 34, IPC. 2. The accused persons were charge-sheeted by Police Katni on the accusation of having attempted at the life of petitioner-complainant Balram and of causing simple hurt on his wife Gyanbai in the evening of 4.4.2000. 3. The respondent-accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges framed by the trial Court under sections 307, 323 and 506B read with 34, IPC. 4. At the trial the above charges against the accused persons were sought to be proved on the evidence of PW 1 Balram Prasad, PW 2 Purushottam, PW 3 Shyamsunder, PW 4 Smt. Gyanbai Tiwari, PW 5 Dr. T.N. Khare, PW 6 B.K. Jharia and PW 7 Dr. Y.S. Parihar. The accused persons did not examine any witness in their defence. 5. The trial Court, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial, found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffered from serious infirmities. The trial Court, in view of the said infirmities, found it quite unsafe to act upon the prosecution evidence and, therefore, recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused persons of the charges under sections 307, 323 and 506B read with 34, IPC. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused persons in flimsy and untenable grounds. 7. We have perused the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial in general and that of PW 1 Balram, PW 2 Purushottam and PW 4 Smt. Gyanbai Tiwari in particular. 8. The alleged incident of assault on Balram and his wife Gyanbai is said to have taken place on 4.4.2000. Admittedly, no report was lodged either by petitioner Balram or his wife Gyanbai. In the information recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha (Exhibit P-11) none of the accused persons were named as the assailant of Balram and Gyanbai. The case diary statements of injured persons Balram and Gyanbai, for the first time, were recorded after more than 8 days on 13.4.2000 and 14.4.2000 respectively. In the information recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha (Exhibit P-11) none of the accused persons were named as the assailant of Balram and Gyanbai. The case diary statements of injured persons Balram and Gyanbai, for the first time, were recorded after more than 8 days on 13.4.2000 and 14.4.2000 respectively. No explanation has been given by the prosecution for this inordinate delay in recording the case diary statements of the injured persons. Injured PW 1 Balram, in his deposition in the Court, has completely exonerated accused persons Bhole Singh and Kalloo Singh @ Ajit Singh by saying that these two accused persons did not cause any injury on him, whereas in his case diary statement (Exhibit P-1) he had equally implicated these two accused persons alongwith the third accused Hira Singh. Another eye-witness PW 2 Purushottam does not even allege that accused persons Bhole Singh and Kalloo Singh @ Ajit Singh were present at the time of the incident much less assaulted Balram. PW 4 Smt. Gyanbai, on her own admission, was not even present at the time of assault on her husband Balram. 9. The Apex Court, while considering the scope of interference in a complainant's revision petition against acquittal, in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788 , observed in para-7 : "7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court in exceptional cases, when there in some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. ....." 10. On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant and on considering the reasonings given by the trial Court, 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 infirmity which may necessitate interference, by this Court, in this complainant's revision petition against acquittal. Mere possibility of another view, on the prosecution evidence, will not by itself be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in a complainant's revision petition against acquittal. In this view of the matter we do not find any scope for interference. 11. For the foregoing reasons the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.