Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 683 (MP)

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mannu alias Manohar

2004-08-20

RAJEEV GUPTA, S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2004
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a petition filed under Section 378 (3), Cr. PC for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent accused Mannu @ Manohar, vide impugned judgment dated 27-2-2003 passed by Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Sessions Trial No. 263/2003, whereby the respondent accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC. ( 2. ) POLICE Sendri, District Tikamgarh after completing the investigation of the case registered on the report of one Rajeev Rajput at Crime No. 71/2002, charge-sheeted respondent accused Mannu @ Manohar for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, on the accusation of having committed murder of informants father Dharam Rajput in the morning of 19-7-2002, by causing injuries on him by means of a heavy piece of stone. ( 3. ) RESPONDENT accused Mannu @ Manohar abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication to the charge framed by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the IPC. ( 4. ) AT the trial, the charge of murder was sought to be proved against the accused on the evidence of Latkan Prasad Banshkar (P. W. 1), Rajeev Rajput (P. W. 2), Azad (P. W. 3), Jagdish Singh Rajput (P. W. 4), Ramsewak (P. W. 5), Shanti Bai (P. W. 6), Veer Singh Yadav (P. W. 7), Kashiram (P. W. 8), R. P. Mishra (P. W. 9), Dr. B. B. Khare (P. W. 10) and S. K. Shrivastava (P. W. 11 ). ( 5. ) OF the eleven witnesses examined by the prosecution at the trial Rajeev Rajput (P. W. 2), Azad (P. W. 3), Jagdish Singh Rajput (P. W. 4), Ramsewak (P. W. 5) and Shanti Bai (P. W. 6) were examined as eye-witnesses of the alleged incident of murder of deceased Dharam Rajput. Of these Rajeev Rajput (P. W. 2), Azad (P. W. 3) and Ramsewak (P. W. 5) did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. The case diary statement of Jagdish Singh Rajput P. W. 4) admittedly was recorded after more than a month of the incident. Similarly, the case diary statement of Shanti Bai (P. W. 6), widow of deceased Dharam Rajput, was recorded after 2 days of the incident though she was available to the Police on the date of the incident itself. ( 6. Similarly, the case diary statement of Shanti Bai (P. W. 6), widow of deceased Dharam Rajput, was recorded after 2 days of the incident though she was available to the Police on the date of the incident itself. ( 6. ) THE Trial Court, on a close scrutiny of the evidence of Jagdish Singh Rajput (P. W. 4) and Shanti Bai (P. W. 6), found that their evidence suffered from serious infirmities. In view of the prior inimical background between the accused and the prosecution witnesses and the serious infirmities in their evidence, the Trial Court found it quite unsafe to act upon their evidence and, therefore, recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal of respondent accused Mannu @ Manohar. ( 7. ) SHRI G. P. Singh, the learned Dy. Government Advocate, vehemently argued that the Trial Court has erred in not giving due weight to the evidence of Jagdish Singh Rajput (P. W. 4) and Shanti Bai (P. W. 6), who have categorically deposed that respondent accused Mannu @ Manohar was the sole assailant of deceased Dharam Rajput. ( 8. ) WE have perused the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial, in general, and that of Rajeev Rajput (P. W. 2), Azad (P. W. 3), Jagdish Singh Rajput (P. W. 4), Ramsewak (P. W. 5) and Shanti Bai (P. W. 6), in particular. ( 9. ) RAJEEV Rajput (P. W. 2), Azad (P. W. 3) and Ramsewak (P. W. 5) have not supported the prosecution case at all, so far as the causing of the death of deceased Dharam by the accused is concerned. It is further apparent from the evidence of Jagdish Singh Rajput (P. W. 4) and the Investigating Officer S. K. Shrivastava (P. W. 11) that the case diary statement of P. W. 4 was recorded after more than a month. No convincing explanation has been given by the Investigating Officer for the inordinate delay in recording the case diary statement of the key eye-witness of the case. Similarly, there is delay in recording the case diary statement of the other eye-witness Shanti Bai (P. W. 6 ). The delay though is of 2 days, but the same assumes importance in view of the fact that this witness was available for interrogation to the police even on the date of the incident itself. ( 10. Similarly, there is delay in recording the case diary statement of the other eye-witness Shanti Bai (P. W. 6 ). The delay though is of 2 days, but the same assumes importance in view of the fact that this witness was available for interrogation to the police even on the date of the incident itself. ( 10. ) THUS, on a close scrutiny of the evidence of Jagdish Singh Rajput (P. W. 4) and Shanti Bai (P. W. 6), we are satisfied that the Trial Court has rightly discarded their evidence for the cogent reasons spelt out in the judgment. ( 11. ) THE learned Dy. Government Advocate could not point out any other piece of evidence to connect respondent accused Mannu @ Manohar with the incident of murder of deceased Dharam Rajput. ( 12. ) THUS, we do not find any scope for interference in this appeal against acquittal. The findings recorded by the Trial Court leading to the acquittal of respondent accused Mannu @ Manohar are based on proper appreciation of the evidence led at the trial. Mere possibility of another view on the prosecution evidence will not, by itself, be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal. ( 13. ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the petition filed under Section 378 (3), Cr. PC fails and is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the appeal itself also stands dismissed.