Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 509 (MP)

Kedar Narayan Khamariya v. Gajraj Singh @ Jadugar

2013-04-15

BRIJ KISHORE DUBE, M.K.MUDGAL

body2013
JUDGMENT : This Criminal Revision under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner/complainant against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.06.2005 passed by V Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind whereby the respondents No.1 and 2 herein/accused have been acquitted from the charge under Sections 302/34 of IPC. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court towards the statements of Omnarayan, P.W.6 and Baburam, P.W.12 and submits that both of them have heard the conspiracy of the above co-accused for committing the murder of Santosh. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Trial Court. 4. The respondents No.1 and 2 alongwith co-accused, Ramnaresh, Vipin Sethiya, Sappu Khemriya and Rajesh were tried before V Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No.159/2003 and after trial, respondents No.1 & 2 have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 307/34 of IPC framed against them, however, co-accused, Ramnaresh, Bipin, Sappu Khemriya and Rajesh had been convicted and sentenced them as detailed in para No.40 of the impugned judgment. 5. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and the evidence available in the file of the Trial Court, we are satisfied with the reasonings of acquittal of respondents No.1 and 2 recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment are trustworthy. Learned Trial Court has taken note of the evidence of Om Narayan, P.W.6 and Baburam, P.W.12 in para Nos.8 and 9 of its judgment and found their testimony does not inspire confidence in relation to the involvement of the respondents No.1 & 2 for commission of the offence and we do not want to deviate from the same as no perversity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and the evidence of the prosecution available in the Trial Court file, we hardly find any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment that may call for any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., This revision petition is devoid of merit and is therefore, dismissed.