Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 95 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Govind Prasad

2003-01-16

BHAWANI SINGH, S.L.JAIN

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal is directed against the acquittal of the accused/respondents by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh, by order dated September 9, 1989, passed in S. T. No. 14/88. ( 2. ) BRIEFLY, prosecution case is that on 1-11-1987 at about 7 p. m. , in front of Indore Bank, the accused/respondents took away Rs. 640/- from the complainant Dulichand by causing injuries with knife. In this incident, accused Govind caused injury to left thigh of the complainant by knife and the accused Ramesh gave 2-3 slaps to him and took away Rs. 640/ -. The matter was reported to the police. Dulichand subjected to medical examination. Accordingly, case under Section 394 of IPC was registered against the accused, but later, challan was filed under Section 394/397 of IPC. ( 3. ) THE accused denied commission of offence and alleged that they have been involved in the case due to rivalry. Two questions fell for considerations before the Trial Court, namely, whether the accused voluntarily caused injuries to the complainant Dulichand and took away Rs. 640/- and whether the accused subjected the complainant to injuries with lethal weapon like knife for committing robbery. ( 4. ) THE prosecution examined eight witnesses in this case. The accused offered explanation during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and denied the commission of crime. No evidence in defence has been produced, although Ex. D-4 has been filed to demonstrate that in an earlier incident dated 2-11-1987, injuries were inflicted on accused Ramesh by the relation of the complainant. ( 5. ) ULTIMATELY, Trial Court passed an order of acquittal of the accused on the ground that there were massive contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and that there existed rivalry between the two groups, therefore, witnesses were either interested or chance witnesses and no independent witnesses were cited by the prosecution though available. ( 6. ) SHRI S. K. Gangrade, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, submitted that the Trial Court did not analyse and appreciate the evidence in correct perspective, therefore, erroneous conclusions have been drawn, resulting in acquittal of the accused, who have committed serious offence of robbery in the market of Damoh. Such offences deserve to be dealt with sternly otherwise they will multiply putting the citizens to grave insecurity. ( 7. Such offences deserve to be dealt with sternly otherwise they will multiply putting the citizens to grave insecurity. ( 7. ) SHRI Nilesh Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the accused, submits that the accused have to be convicted on satisfactory evidence showing their participation in the crime, but in face of contradictory, weak and unreliable evidence, finding of guilty cannot be arrived at. Shri Nilesh Shrivastava also submits that prosecution has examined interest witnesses in this case. They gave contradictory statements and their object is to involve the accused due to past enmity, since a report was lodged by the accused Ramesh against the relation of the complainant, which is still pending trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh. ( 8. ) GIVING consideration to the matter, we find that the allegation of complainant Dulichand has remained unsubstantiated. His own statement is not satisfactory. The Trial Court has rightly recorded that litigation is pending, which has been initiated on the report of the accused Ramesh, in which relations of complainant are involved. He states that the accused Govind Prasad inflicted injuries with knife cutting the pant, but the pant has not been taken into possession by the police. This means, version that the accused inflicted knife blow, as a result of which pant was also cut and blood oozed out of the injuries, thus inflicted, has not been proved. Doctor also states that this could self inflicted. Further, this witness reports that he had kept Rs. 640/- in his right pocket, but states that he had kept the same in both the pockets. Ashok (P. W. 2) is cousin of Dulichand. He is stated to be a chance witness so is the case of Rajju alias Rajendra Kumar. There was no occasion for them to be at the place of occurrence in the normal course, therefore, they could be, at the most, chance witnesses and much reliance cannot be placed on them. FIR is recorded at the instance of Dulichand, in which he states that knife injury was inflicted at the right thigh, but Dr. A. K. Tiwari (P. W. 8) states that the injury was on left thigh. More so, the independent witness Chhotelal (P. W. 6) has not supported the prosecution case. Above all, the incident took place in the market. Large number of people might have gathered at the place of occurrence, in case it had happened. A. K. Tiwari (P. W. 8) states that the injury was on left thigh. More so, the independent witness Chhotelal (P. W. 6) has not supported the prosecution case. Above all, the incident took place in the market. Large number of people might have gathered at the place of occurrence, in case it had happened. The police could record their version and examine them in the Court. It failed to do so and preferred to record/cite witnesses, who are relations of the complainant and interested to involve the accused in the commission of crime. Therefore, with this kind evidence, it is not only difficult but also hazardous to record finding of conviction against the accused. We do not find any manifest error or perversity in the assessment of evidence by the Trial Court in this case. Therefore, no interference in the order of acquittal is possible. Even otherwise, it is an incident of 1-11-1987. The period of more than 15 years has passed. For this reason as well, it is not proper to convert the acquittal into conviction. ( 9. ) IN the circumstances aforesaid, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.