Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1038 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Indersingh

2014-08-21

P.K.JAISWAL, S.K.SETH

body2014
JUDGMENT Seth, J. -- 1. This appeal, with leave, is against the judgment of acquittal handed down by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone in S.T. No.129/2000. 2. Respondent Inder Singh was prosecuted for having committed offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC for causing murder of Dinesh. 3. Poonam Chand (PW3) and Sakubai (PW5) are the parents of the deceased Dinesh whereas Marubai (PW4) is the wife of Dinesh. Rameshwar PW2 is the cousin of Dinesh and Rukmanibai (PW6) and Ganesh (PW7) are the sister and brother of Dinesh. 4. Prosecution case in brief is that on 13.11.1998, Dinesh along with his servant Inder Singh went to the agriculture field for the night-watch. They left home around 7.45 p.m. within 15 minutes Inder Singh came back running to the village (Bagdari) and disclosed that unknown assailants attacked Dinesh with stones as a result whereof Dinesh was lying near the field of Satyanarayan, upon getting this information Rameshwar (PW2) along with Bharat, Sajju, Chhater went and found Dinesh lying in unconscious State near the field of Satyanarayan. They brought him back to village and then Rameshwar took Dinesh to Bhagwanpur Hospital and thereafter Rameshwar went and lodge FIR (Ex.P/2) in the P.S. Bhagwanpura. On basis of FIR (Ex.P/2), a case was registered under section 307 of the IPC and the investigation commenced. Dinesh was shifted to District Hospital where he was examined by Dr. K. S. Thakur (PW1) and the MLC report is Ex.P/1. 5. On 15.11.1998, relatives of Dinesh took him to the Suyash Hospital Indore and during treatment; Dinesh succumbed to injuries on 18.11.1998. This was followed by the inquest and usual marg inquiry. Corpse was sent to the M. Y. Hospital for the post-mortem examination. Ex.P/10 is the autopsy report by Dr. Dube (PW13) who conducted the post-mortem examination. According to Dr. Dube, Dinesh died due to respiratory failure as a result of head injury. After the usual steps, charge sheet was filed and the respondent was arraigned to stand trial under section 302 of the Penal Code. 6. As the trial respondent abjured guilt therefore in order to bring home the charge, prosecution examined 15 witnesses. On consideration of evidence adduced by the prosecution learned trial Court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent committed the offence of culpable homicide. Thus giving the benefit of doubt, respondent was acquitted. 7. 6. As the trial respondent abjured guilt therefore in order to bring home the charge, prosecution examined 15 witnesses. On consideration of evidence adduced by the prosecution learned trial Court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent committed the offence of culpable homicide. Thus giving the benefit of doubt, respondent was acquitted. 7. Against the judgment of acquittal, State after obtaining the leave, has preferred this appeal as stated above. 8. We have heard rival submissions at length and perused the record of the trial Court. The case in hand is of circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that when the case rests on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests : - (1) the circumstances from which inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of definite and unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and (iii) the circumstances taken cumulatively should from a complete chain leading to the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused and none else. 9. After a close scrutiny we find that the case in hand does not satisfy the three tests as mentioned. The trial Court has discussed the evidence in detailed in its well-reasoned judgment which does not call for repetition. In view of evidence on record, it could not be said that the State has entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished the grounds on which the trial Court has based its judgment, which are reasonable and plausible. We do not find that the view taken by the trial Court is perverse or unreasonable. Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence before it recorded the finding of acquittal. As result we find no merit and substance so as to warrant interference with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Thus, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Respondent is on bail, therefore his bail bond stands discharged. 10. Ordered accordingly.