Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1232 (MP)

Geera Pawar v. Pawan Singh Sikarwar

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 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in short 'the Code' against impugned judgment dated 6/12/2013 in Criminal Case No. 1597/09 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shivpuri acquitting the respondents/accused of the charges for commission of offences under Sections 452, 294 323 (on two counts) as well as section 506 Part-II of I.P.C. 3. Brief facts, according to prosecution, which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are that there was off-and on dispute over tying the cattle by the accused/respondents near the house of the complainant. On the date of incident on 25/8/09 when the accused/respondent No. 2 Bhanupratap was tying the cattle at the same place, the daughter of the complainant asked him not to do. The accused abused her and on hearing noise, other accused Pawan (respondent No. 1) and Siyaram also reached the spot. Thereafter, it is alleged that accused Siyaram rushed towards the complainant with a stick. In order to save herself, the complainant with her daughter came inside her house. The accused also chased her and went inside the house of the complainant. Then accused Bhanupratap slapped her daughter and accused Siyaram kicked the complainant. At the time of incident, witnesses Devesh and Saroj were also present, who intervened in the matter and rescued the complainant. The complainant then reached to the police station to lodge a report of the incident against the accused-persons. When no action was taken and the FIR was not lodged, she filed private complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior for commission of offence under Sections 452, 294 323 (on two counts) as well as section 506 Part-II of I.P.C., which was registered against the accused/respondents on recording the statements under section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and subsequently the charges were framed vide order dated 5/9/2011. 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 four witnesses, namely, Geeta Pawar (PW-1), Swati Pawar (PW-2), Devesh Parashar (PW-3), Smt. Saroj Walambe (PW-4). Accused Bhanupratap examined himself as DW-1. 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 four witnesses, namely, Geeta Pawar (PW-1), Swati Pawar (PW-2), Devesh Parashar (PW-3), Smt. Saroj Walambe (PW-4). Accused Bhanupratap examined himself as DW-1. After hearing the prosecution as well as defence, the learned trial Judge came to acquit the accused-respondents of all the charges, hence this appeal. 6. 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 of the witnesses, the motive of the crime was apparent but despite that the evidence was ignored and the findings of acquittal were record 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. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents-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. 8. Having regard to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for either side, the entire evidence and the impugned judgment have been perused. 9. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is clear that the evidence of complainant Geeta (PW-1) and her daughter Swati (PW-2) are not found reliable by the court being inconsistent on material points. The presence of other two witnesses, namely, Devesh (PW-3) and Smt. Saroj (PW-4) is also found doubtful in the light of paras 6 and 5 of the cross-examination of witnesses Swati (PW-2) and Devesh (PW-3). Further, the presence of the complainant herself at the time of commission of offence is held to be doubtful after perusal of the document marked as Ex. D/2. Except the aforesaid witnesses, there is no other witness produced by the prosecution who had any opportunity to see the incident with his naked eyes. Further, the presence of the complainant herself at the time of commission of offence is held to be doubtful after perusal of the document marked as Ex. D/2. Except the aforesaid witnesses, there is no other witness produced by the prosecution who had any opportunity to see the incident with his naked eyes. Hence, after detailed examination of the depositions of the witnesses referred to above, the learned trial Judge came to conclusion, after having appreciated the evidence as a whole of the prosecution case, that there is no iota of evidence against the accused-respondents to connect them with the alleged offences. 10. This court has also carefully gone through the evidence recorded by the trial court and is of the firm view that the view taken by the trial Court is reasonable, plausible and possible view from the evidence recorded and the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the respondents/accused beyond reasonable doubt. 11. Moreover 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. 12. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. 13. In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A. No. 2765/14 filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. for taking document on record becomes infructuous and is dismissed accordingly.