Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 760 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Ramswaroop Yadav

2004-09-09

CHANDRESH BHUSHAN, S.S.JHA

body2004
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against acquittal of respondent Ramswaroop Yadav by the Court of Shri P.C. Agrawal, Sessions Judge, Morena, in Sessions Trial No. 814/86. According to the prosecution, the respondent was a Teacher in Government School in Morena and he was transferred in the year 1985. Laxmi Narayan Sharma is the Principal of the School and is brother of Shiv Shankar, the father of deceased Vishnu Shankar. Accused has ill will towards Shiv Shankar alias Shivram as he thought that he was responsible for his transfer. On 3.9.1986, Vishnu Shankar reached home in the Rickshaw of Dilshad (PW 15) from Railway Station, Morena, to his house at Ganesh Pura. He was taken to the Hospital by Raghvendra (PW 6) and Ram Murti (PW 10). In the hospital, Dr. Yogendra Singh has treated Vishnu Shankar and he has also cleaned the stomach of Vishnu Shankar. On regaining conscious Vishnu Shankar told to Ramesh Chandra, Head Constable (PW 3), Raghvendra (PW 6), Laxmi Narayan Sharma (PW 7) and Ram Murti (PW 10) that the respondent has purchased two Samosa from Bus Stand, Morena. After eating Samosa he fell sick. He also admitted that he alongwith respondent Ramswaroop went to Delhi for excursion. On his return from Delhi, he stayed with the respondent at Bus Stand at Dholpur. At Dholpur, the respondent tried to push him under a Truck. It is alleged that poison was administered in Samosa to deceased Vishnu Shankar. Dr. D.S. Badkur (PW 8) after performing the post-mortem preserved viscera and sent it for chemical examination. Forensic Laboratory Test Report is filed on record. In the viscera, ethyl alcohol and furfuraldehyde was found in the stomach of the deceased. There is no evidence on record that the respondent had mixed poison in the said Somasa before offering the same to deceased Vishnu Shankar. Even otherwise, there is no evidence regarding administering of ethyl alcohol to the deceased by respondent. It is admitted that alcohol was found in the stomach of deceased. There is no evidence on record to demonstrate that ethyl alcohol was administered by the respondent to the deceased. In the absence of proof of administering poison found in the viscera i.e., ethyl alcohol and furfuraldehyde, it cannot be said that poison was administered by the respondent. It is admitted that alcohol was found in the stomach of deceased. There is no evidence on record to demonstrate that ethyl alcohol was administered by the respondent to the deceased. In the absence of proof of administering poison found in the viscera i.e., ethyl alcohol and furfuraldehyde, it cannot be said that poison was administered by the respondent. It is stated that said Samosa were purchased from the Bus Stand from a shop and was given to the deceased for eating. PW 15 Dilshad has deposed that deceased boarded his Rickshaw at Railway Station, Morena, and the boy told him to take him to Ganeshpura. Boy was under intoxication and his condition was not good. He was unable to walk and unable to stand. While he was being taken to his house, he vomited on the way to his house and when he got down from Rickshaw, he fell on the ground. On seeing his condition by his family members, the family members requested him to take the boy to the hospital. Then he took him to the hospital alongwith the family members. There is no evidence by this witness that Samosa was offered on the way to deceased Vishnu Shankar by respondent. In para 3 of his cross-examination, this witness has further stated that the boy stopped at the liquor shop and shouted, but no one came out of the shop. Then he again sat in the Rickshaw and went to his house. Complete case of prosecution has been demolished by PW 15 Dilshad. Prosecution story of offering Samosa by the respondent is not established. It is the case of prosecution that deceased was offered Samosa at Bus Stand and immediately after reaching home, he fell sick and he was admitted in hospital and died. On the contrary, PW 6 has deposed that the deceased has told him that the respondent tried to push him under a Truck near Dholpur. Thereafter, he had suspicion about the respondent, therefore, he walked upto Hetampur and then boarded the Bus and reached Morena: Thereafter, the respondent again met the deceased at Bus Stand Morena and he offered him Samosa, but this is not proved by the prosecution. On the other hand, the evidence is that the deceased boarded for his house from Railway Station, Morena, and the respondent was seen with deceased at Dholpur. On the other hand, the evidence is that the deceased boarded for his house from Railway Station, Morena, and the respondent was seen with deceased at Dholpur. Even then prosecution's contention is that deceased and respondent went together to Dholpur. Bhure Singh (PW 12) has deposed that both of them, the respondent and the deceased, had boarded morning Bus from Dholpur to Morena. Therefore, the prosecution story that deceased walked from Dholpur to Hetampur is also not established. From the overall evidence on record, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Even otherwise, the trial Court has considered the evidence on record and has found that no case is made out against the respondent. We do not find any reason to differ from the finding recorded by the trial Court. Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondent. Therefore, trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent. Appeal has no merits and is dismissed. Bail bonds and surety of the respondent is discharged.