Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1231 (MP)

Mohar Singh v. State of M. P.

2014-09-26

B.D.RATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT B.D. Rathi, J. 1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard on the question of admission. 2. The complainant/appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in short 'the Code' against impugned judgment dated 17/12/2013 in S.T. No. 146/12 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, district Vidisha acquitting the respondents No. 2 to 13/accused of the charges for commission of offences under Sections 148, 294, 452, 323/149 (on two counts), 436/149 and 506 Part-II of I.P.C. 3. Brief facts, according to prosecution, which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are that on 28/2/2012 at around 6 p.m., in front of the house of complainant-Mohar Singh (PW-1) in village Lavakhedi, the accused-persons came with common object and after abusing the complainant assaulted him with stick, iron rod etc. Thereafter, the accused rushed towards the house of Ram Singh, brother of complainant where again accused-persons, namely, Shivraj, Gudda, Ramesh, Vijaykaran, Samander, Rakesh, Rambabu, Paijen, Budda and Dinesh caused injuries to the persons of the complainant party. The matter was then reported to the police station and accordingly the crime was registered. 4. Before the trial court, the accused-persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and therefore they were put to trial. 5. The prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses, namely, Mohar Singh (W-1), Nadanbai (PW-2), Kantibai (PW-3), Ramesh (PW-4), Manfool (PW-5), Jitendra (PW-6), Ramsingh (PW-7), Geetabai (PW-8), Bittobai (PW-9), Manisha (PW-10), Ku. Krantibai (PW-11), Mohanbai (PW-12), Saritabai (PW-13), Veerobai (PW-14), C.L. Choudhary (PW-15) and Dr. N.S. Jatav (PW-16). The accused did not examine anybody in defence. 6. After taking into consideration the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as defence, the learned trial court held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents/accused for the commission of the alleged offences, therefore recorded acquittal in favour of the accused/respondents under the impugned judgment, hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of acquittal on the grounds that the trial Judge passed the judgment of acquittal against the evidence on record and the law applicable to the case. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of acquittal on the grounds that the trial Judge passed the judgment of acquittal against the evidence on record and the law applicable to the case. It is contended that from the evidence led by the prosecution, the motive of the crime was apparent but despite of the same, the findings of acquittal were recorded in favour of the accused. It is, therefore, prayed that by allowing the appeal, the judgment of acquittal may kindly be set aside and the respondents/accused may be convicted and punished in accordance with law. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 13/accused, on the other hand, supported the judgment of acquittal and contended that the prosecution utterly failed to bring home the charges against the accused and the judgment of acquittal is passed on the sound reasonings, therefore, it is prayed that by confirming the judgment of the trial court, the appeal preferred by the complainant may be dismissed. 9. Having regard to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for either side, the entire evidence and the impugned judgment have been perused. 10. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is clear that the evidence of complainant Mohar Singh (PW-1) has been tested with other material witnesses' account in great detail. The complainant has stated in his evidence that in all 12 in number accused persons, namely, Ramdayal, Niranjan, Samander, Budha, Dinesh, Gudda, Rajesh, Paijan, Shivraj, Rambabu and Member Singh came to him having armed with farsa, iron rod and stick etc. with which they caused injuries to him and after setting his house (Tapariya) at fire they fled away from the spot. It is relevant to mention here that though the complainant narrated specifically in his evidence before the court about causing injuries by accused persons with the respective weapons but this fact is not mentioned in the FIR lodged by him as well as in his police case-diary statement. Moreover, the injuries sustained by the complainant and other persons, namely, Krantibai, Veerobai, Nadanbai, Krantibai, Moharbai, Ramsingh, Savitabai were not proved by the medical evidence of Dr. N.S. Jatav (PW-13). The prosecution also failed to seize any such alleged weapons from the possession of the accused-persons. Moreover, the injuries sustained by the complainant and other persons, namely, Krantibai, Veerobai, Nadanbai, Krantibai, Moharbai, Ramsingh, Savitabai were not proved by the medical evidence of Dr. N.S. Jatav (PW-13). The prosecution also failed to seize any such alleged weapons from the possession of the accused-persons. The complainant further admitted in evidence that a criminal case in regard to causing injuries to the accused-party is pending against him. Apart that Ramesh (PW-4) denied to have seen the incident. He further admitted the fact of pending criminal case instituted upon the report of the accused-party. Other witnesses Manfool (PW-5), Jitendra (PW-6), injured Ramsingh (PW-7) and Bittobai (PW-9) have also not supported the prosecution version and were declared hostile. Hence, after detailed examination of the depositions of the witnesses referred to above, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the evidence on record is full with contradictions, omissions, exaggerations and is not in conclusive in nature to connect the accused/respondents with the alleged offences. In the absence of any such evidence, the trial court has held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. 11. After going through the evidence on record and further considering the reasonable probabilities arising out of the circumstances of the matter, this court also finds that the view taken by the trial court is proper. 12. Apart that it is settled in law that in acquittal appeals, interference is warranted only when it is found that the reasons given by the trial Court for acquittal are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous, perverse or demonstrably unsustainable. As discussed above, there is nothing on record to connect the respondents with alleged offences. The judgment impugned in the appeal therefore does not require any interference in the aforesaid circumstances. 13. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.