Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 590 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Kishan

2005-05-05

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2005
JUDGMENT The State has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia, in Criminal Appeal No. 780/94 on 25.4.1996, acquitting the respondent from charge under section 354, 294, 323 and 325/34 of IPC. The prosecution case in brief is that on 18.3.1993, in the morning, at about 9.30 a.m. when complainant Panabai alongwith her sister-in-law Maya had gone to reap the crop at her field, accused respondents namely Balkishan, Ramkishan, Lal Singh and Sunder Singh went there. Ladies of the family of the accused persons also reached there. Accused persons objected reaping of the crop by the complainant and snatched her sickel. Accused Chenu assaulted her by a hockey on her right hand, Balkishan assaulted by lathi, Ramkishan inflicted injuries by luhangi and accused Sunder assaulted her by fists and kicks. It is said that accused Sunder and Balkishan hurled filthy abuses. When her sister-in-law came to rescue her, accused Ramkishan inflicted a blow by the luhangi on her head. It is also alleged that the accused persons with the intention of outraging the modesty of the complainant torn her Sari and Saya. Panabai alongwith her husband's younger brother Jairam went to police station Badoni and lodged the report. Police registered the case under section 323, 294 and 354/34 of IPC against the accused persons. Panabai and Maya were sent for medical examination. Dr. A.K. Gupta examined them. Vide medical examination report Ex. P-11, Panabai was found to have suffered one contusion on right forearm just above wrist, one lacerated wound on parietal region and one contusion on right hand. All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. She was referred for X-ray examination of injury No.1. Mayadevi was found to have suffered one contusion on head and one lacerated wound on right thumb. Both the injuries were simple in nature. PW 14 Dr. R.C. Chakrawat1hy had conducted the X-ray examination of the right wrist of injured Panabai and vide X-ray report (Ex. P-14) found a fracture of radius bone of tight wrist. After completing investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the case was taken up for trial. Trial Court framed the charges under sections 325, 325/34, 354, 294 and 323 of IPC. All the accused abjured their guilt. P-14) found a fracture of radius bone of tight wrist. After completing investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the case was taken up for trial. Trial Court framed the charges under sections 325, 325/34, 354, 294 and 323 of IPC. All the accused abjured their guilt. According to them, the injured ladies had suffered injuries in the quarrel which had taken place between the ladies of family of accused persons and the complainant party. Prosecution examined 14 witnesses including eye-witnesses and doctors, who had performed the medical examination of the injured. Accused also examined two witnesses in the defence. DW 1 Rajaram and DW 2 Panchu. After appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court found the prosecution evidence unreliable and insufficient for conviction and acquitted the accused persons of all the charges. Hence, aggrieved, State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal. The learned counsel for the State, Shri Anil Bansal, P.L. has contended that the trial Court had committed illegality in acquitting the respondents. He submitted that there was sufficient evidence on record to prove the charges against the accused-respondents. The learned trial Court has erroneously disbelieved the evidence of injured witnesses though it was corroborated by the medical evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents accused, Shri Brajesh Sharma contended that the evidence of injured witnesses and other eye-witnesses suffers with discrepancies and material contradictions. The view taken by the trial Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or unjust. Hence, the appeal filed by the State against the impugned judgment deserves to be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel of both the sides and perused the evidence on record and also the findings given by the trial Court in the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the respondents has referred the evidence of PW 1 Panabai, who is the complainant and an injured witness. On perusal of her evidence, it appears that she had made material improvements from her earlier statement. She has bee.1J confronted by her police statement (Ex. D-2) and FIR. (Ex. P-l). There are omissions on material points which have been duly confronted and proved. In para 5 of her cross-examination she has been confronted on the point as to which accused had wielded which weapon and also on the point that accused Lallu had pulled her Dhoti. She has bee.1J confronted by her police statement (Ex. D-2) and FIR. (Ex. P-l). There are omissions on material points which have been duly confronted and proved. In para 5 of her cross-examination she has been confronted on the point as to which accused had wielded which weapon and also on the point that accused Lallu had pulled her Dhoti. From the evidence on record it also appears that the ladies of the family of accused persons were also present on the disputed field for reaping the crop. PW 2 Matadeen, in his chief examination before the trial Court stated that the ladies of the two families were quarreling, but he did not see as to who had caused Marpeet of whom. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. PW 3 Jairam, an alleged eye-witness, in his cross-examination admitted that he was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence and whatever he had stated in the chief examination was only on the basis of what he had heard from others.. He had not seen the incident by his own eyes. PW 5 Om Prakash has also stated that the quarrel had taken place between the ladies of rival parties. He was also declared hostile. PW 4 Maya has stated that accused Chenu had inflicted a blow by hockey on the hand of Panabai, whereas Panabai in her statement stated that it was Ramkishan who had inflicted the hockey blow on her right hand. The learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the judgment and has concluded that in view of the discrepant and contradictory evidence adduced by the prosecution, it was not safe to convict the accused persons. I have perused the evidence on record and on re-appreciation I also find that the trial Court had committed no illegality or perversity in appreciating the evidence. Though the injuries on the person of Maya and Panabai are corroborated by medical evidence, but this cannot lead to inference without some amount of doubt that the respondents were the· author of their injuries. A review of the evidence goes to show that the evidence of the prosecution is replete with inconsistancy and no implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of the complainant and other witnesses. A review of the evidence goes to show that the evidence of the prosecution is replete with inconsistancy and no implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of the complainant and other witnesses. There is thus no perversity in the findings of the lower Court and the order of acquittal cannot be said to be perverse and unreasonable. It is thus not open to this Court, in the circumstances of the case, to reverse the order of acquittal, even if it is possible to take a different view. For the reasons given above, I do not find any reason to come to a conclusion different from that of the trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced by prosecution. Appeal thus fails and is hereby accordingly dismissed;