Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 799 (MP)

Lallu Singh v. Praveen Vishwakarma

2003-06-30

RAJEEV GUPTA, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2003
JUDGMENT This is complainant's revision petition against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 8.4.1994, passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 653/92, whereby respondents accused Praveen Vishwa Karma, Vijay Kumar Vishwakarma and Dilip Vishwakarma and their co-accused persons Sudhir Vishwakarma, Piddi @ Pradeep Vishwakarma and Vinod Sen were acquitted of the charges under sections 147, 148 and 307 read with 34 IPC. Police Civil Lines, Jabalpur after completing the investigation of the case registered at Crime No. 361/91, charge-sheeted as many as six accused persons, including the three respondents, for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under sections 147, 148 and 307 read with 34 IPC. The accused persons were alleged to have attempted at the life of complainant Lallu Singh by causing injuries on him, in the intervening night of 11/12th of December, 1991. The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges framed by the trial Court under section 147, 148 and 307 read with 34 IPC. At the trial, the above charges against the accused persons were sought to be proved on the evidence of PW 1 Shivdas, PW 2 Rajaram, PW 3 Subhash, PW 4 Gulab Bai, PW 5 Lallu Singh, PW 6 Satish Kumar Mehra PW 7 Chaturbhuj Singh, PW 8 Kamal Bhan, PW 9 Manendra, PW 10 Durga Prasad and PW 11 Dr. R.K. Pyasi. The accused persons, however, did not examine any witness in their defence. The trial Court, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial, found that the evidence of solitary eye-witness PW 5 Lallu Singh suffered from serious infirmities. As there was no other evidence to corroborate the evidence of PW 5 Lallu Singh, the trial Court found it quite unsafe to act upon his evidence and, therefore, recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused persons of the charges under sections 147, 148 and 307 read with 34 IPC. From the revision petition, we gather that the acquittal of the accused persons is sought to be challenged on the ground that the trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of injured Lallu Singh on flimsy and untenable grounds. From the revision petition, we gather that the acquittal of the accused persons is sought to be challenged on the ground that the trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of injured Lallu Singh on flimsy and untenable grounds. 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 is 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 ...." From the evidence of PW 2 Rajaram and PW 6 Satish Kumar Mehra, we gather that injured Lallu Singh was found lying injured in the ground of Mahakaushal College. As Lallu Singh could not disclose the names of his assailants either to PW 2 Rajaram and PW 6 Satish Kumar Mehra, no first information report was recorded at his instance. It was for the first time after five days, that on 17.12.1991 injured Lallu Singh is said to have disclosed the names of his assailants by writing their names on a paper -Ex. P-3. Injured Lallu Singh in this disclosure named as many as six persons as his assailants, namely; Vinod. Vijay, Praveen, Piddi, Dilip and Sudhir. His case diary statement n Ex. D-1, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, was recorded after more than a month on 16.1.1992, wherein also he named as many as six persons as his assailants, including accused Vinod. On 17.1.1992, his statement in the form of dying declaration -- Ex. D-2, was recorded by Naib Tehsildar, Jabalpur. In this statement (Ex. D-2) also, he named accused Vinod as one of his six assailants. Surprisingly, in his evidence in the Court, injured PW 5 Lallu Singh completely exonerated accused Vinod by deposing that he was not even present at the time of the incident. D-2, was recorded by Naib Tehsildar, Jabalpur. In this statement (Ex. D-2) also, he named accused Vinod as one of his six assailants. Surprisingly, in his evidence in the Court, injured PW 5 Lallu Singh completely exonerated accused Vinod by deposing that he was not even present at the time of the incident. From his evidence, it is apparent that PW 5 Lallu Singh has improved upon his previous statements in material particulars. The conduct of PW 5 Lallu Singh in first implicating accused Vinod as his assailant in his earliest disclosure (Ex. P-3), in his case diary statement (Ex. D-1) and his statement recorded as dying declaration (Ex. D-2) and then denying even his presence at the time of the incident in his deposition in the Court renders his entire evidence unworthy of credence. True, the presence of injuries on a witness establishes his presence at the time of the incident beyond any shadow of doubt, but the presence of injuries will not by itself, in every case, be a guarantee of the truthfulness of the evidence of such a witness. We do not find any material in the evidence of other prosecution witnesses which may corroborate the infirm evidence of PW-5 Lallu Singh. In this state of evidence, no fault can be found with the approach and the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to the acquittal of the respondents accused persons. It is rather unfortunate that a case of this nature is going unpunished, but complainant Lallu Singh himself is to be blamed for this. He was a 'liar' either at the initial stage when he implicated accused Vinod in the earliest disclosure (Ex. P-3), case diary statement (Ex. D-1) and the other statement (Ex. D-2) recorded as his dying declaration, or he is a 'liar' at the trial stage, when his evidence was recorded, wherein he exonerated accused Vinod for the reasons best known to this witness. In any of the two eventualities, the evidence of PW-5 Lallu Singh and the prosecution case has to suffer the setback. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to the acquittal of the respondents accused persons. 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. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to the acquittal of the respondents accused persons. 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. The revision petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.