Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1551 (MP)

Gyansingh v. Vasu Pardi

2014-11-27

S.K.GANGELE, SHEEL NAGU

body2014
JUDGMENT : S.K. Gangele, J. 1. This criminal appeal under section 372(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the complainant assailing the judgment dated 8/8/2014 delivered by the Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Session Trial No. 38/2014. 2. By the aforesaid judgment, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused persons Vasu Pardi and Rahul Pardi, respondents 1 and 2 herein of the charges punishable under sections 450, 327 and 394 read with sections 397 and 506 Part II IPC, and accused Gabbu Pardi, respondent No. 3 herein of the charges punishable under sections 216(A) and 120-B of IPC. 3. Accused persons namely Vasu Pardi and Rahul Pardi had been charged for committing house trespass in the house of the complainant on the date of incident, i.e. in the night of 5.8.2013 with an intention to commit robbery and during the course of committing robbery, causing voluntary hurts to the complainant and his family members namely Devendra and Ravindra, while accused Gabbu Pardi had been charged for hatching criminal conspiracy in connivance with accused Vasu Pardi and Rahul Pardi and harbouring them knowing full well that they had committed the offence of robbery. 4. As per the prosecution case, in the night intervening 05th and 06th August, 2013 at about 1.00 the accused persons forcibly entered in the house of the complainant Gyansingh (PW 1) and committed loot of cash and gold and silver ornaments. When the complainant and his family members tried to resist, the accused persons are alleged to have caused marpeet with Devendra and Ravindra. 5. Complainant lodged FIR (Ex. P/1) of the incident at 01.00 noon on 5/8/2013 at Police Station Guna on the basis of which Crime No. 366/2013 for the offences punishable under sections 452, 327, 323 and 506B read with section 34 IPC had been registered against accused Vasu and Rahul. During the course of investigation complainant's son Ramveer Jatav made an application (Ex. P/3) to the concerned police, i.e. 25 days after the incident, alleging that the accused persons were armed with lethal weapons and had committed loot of cash of Rs. 90,000/- and certain gold and silver ornaments. Said application was also included in the investigation. 6. After competing the investigation, the police filed challan in the committal court, which in its turn, committed the case to the Court of Session. 90,000/- and certain gold and silver ornaments. Said application was also included in the investigation. 6. After competing the investigation, the police filed challan in the committal court, which in its turn, committed the case to the Court of Session. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons, recorded evidence of the witnesses and after appreciation of the evidence acquitted the accused persons holding that the story of the prosecution is highly suspicious and concocted one; statements of prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence and the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. Hence, this appeal at the instance of complainant assailing judgment of acquittal. 7. Shri B.D. Mahore, learned counsel for the appellant complainant has assailed the findings recorded by the Trial Court inter alia contending that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in not relying upon the statements of the prosecution witnesses, complainant Gyansingh (PW 1) in particular. He submitted that though the First Information Report (Ex. P/1) lacs material particulars, yet during the course of investigation Ramveer Jatav, son of the complainant submitted an application (Ex. P/3) to the concerned police officer giving details about the looted cash and silver and gold ornaments along with details of the incident. He also submitted that during the incident three persons including the complainant had also sustained injuries, however, the Trial Court has not believed it merely on the statement of the doctor stating that the alleged injuries may be self inflicted one. He further submitted that the Trial Court fell in error in not relying upon the recovery of Rs. 700/- on the memorandum of the accused Rahul under section 27 of the Evidence Act. He, therefore, prayed that this appeal be allowed, impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside and the accused persons be convicted and sentenced for the offences for which they had been tried. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and minutely perused the evidence on record, documentary as well as oral, and we are of the considered view, that this appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. The Trial Court has disbelieved the case of the prosecution on three grounds namely delayed FIR, medical evidence and untrustworthy statements of the prosecution witnesses namely complainant and his family members. 9. The Trial Court has disbelieved the case of the prosecution on three grounds namely delayed FIR, medical evidence and untrustworthy statements of the prosecution witnesses namely complainant and his family members. The Trial Court found that though the incident took place in the night at around 1.00 on 5/8/2013, however, report of the incident was lodged after about 12 hours of the incident, however, the police station was only at a distance of three kilometer from the place of incident. The FIR lacs material particulars of the incident and runs to the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. To fill up the lacuna, an application was filed by the son of the complainant, 25 days after the incident, during the course of investigation detailing the incident and particulars of the property looted which makes the case of prosecution highly suspicious. 10. It has further been found by the Trial Court that complainant Gyansingh, Devendra and Ravindra are alleged to have sustained injuries in the incident, but their injuries were not found proved from the medical evidence. The Trial Court has found that had the injuries been caused during the course of incident then it could have been caused in the night itself, however, those injuries were found to have been caused at around noon time next day which falsifies the very case of the prosecution in regard to causing injuries to the complainant and his family members during the course of incident. 11. The Trial Court has found the evidence of the complainant Gyansingh (PW 1), in regard to robbery and causing injuries, is far away from truth, highly exaggerative and does not find corroboration from the FIR and his statement recorded by the Police under section 161 Cr.P.C. No recovery had been made from the accused in regard to the articles mentioned in the application filed by the son of the complainant with the police, nor the box () containing ornaments and cash had been seized from the possession of the accused persons during the course of investigation. 12. The Trial Court also took note of the fact that there is enmity between accused Vasu and the complainant Gyansingh on account of money transaction as is mentioned in the FIR itself, hence, possibility of false implication of the accused in the crime could not be ruled out. 13. 12. The Trial Court also took note of the fact that there is enmity between accused Vasu and the complainant Gyansingh on account of money transaction as is mentioned in the FIR itself, hence, possibility of false implication of the accused in the crime could not be ruled out. 13. As regard accused Gabbu, the Trial Court has found that whatever evidence has been produced by the Trial Court, it does not connect accused Gabbu with commission of the crime in question, hence, no charge levied against accused Gabbu could be found proved. 14. Looking to the aforesaid, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the prosecution has hopelessly failed to prove the offences alleged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently acquitted them of the charges levied against them. 15. Having gone through the evidence on record and hearing appellant's learned counsel, as discussed above, we have found that the trial court has considered the evidence in detail and has given its cogent reasons in acquitting the accused persons. We do not find any ground to interfere in it. 16. Resultantly, this appeal sans substance and is hereby dismissed at motion hearing stage itself.