Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 735 (MP)

Narendra Kumar Varma v. State of M. P.

2014-06-26

S.K.PALO

body2014
Judgment: S.K. Palo, J. 1. Challenge has been made to order passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, in Criminal Appeal No. 172/2008 (Jagdish Vs. Lok Abhiyojak and another) and Criminal Appeal No. 173/2008 (Vishnu Vs. State of M.P.) decided jointly on 20th December, 2008. 2. Respondent No. 2 Jagdish stood trial alongwith another accused Vishnu under Sections 452, 294,323/34, 506B of IPC before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Shalini Sharma), Morena, in Criminal Case No. 449/2007. Learned JMFC, pronounced the judgment on 6.10.2008 convicted the accused Jagdish and Vishnu under Section 452 of IPC and sentenced them to one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- each. In lieu of fine, they were to undergo to 10 days R.I. as under Section 323/24 of IPC, they were sentenced to fine of Rs. 1000/- each. They were acquitted under Sections 294 and 506B of IPC. Both Jagdish(non-petitioner No. 2) as well as Vishnu filed Criminal Appeal before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Morena. Both the appeals, Criminal Appeal No. 172/2008 and Criminal Appeal No. 173/2008 were decided together on 20th December, 2008. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowing their appeals, acquitted the accused persons under Sections 452 of Cr.P.C. and maintained the order of conviction and sentence under Section 323/34 of IPC. 3. Aggrieved by this judgment, complainant Narendra son of Budharam has filed this revision under Section397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. 4. According to the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not appreciate the evidence. There is sufficient evidence on record to convict the non-petitioner No. 2. It is submitted that non-petitioner No. 2 Jagdish entered the house with an intention to commit crime therefore, Section 452 of IPC is attracted. It is prayed by the petitioner that the judgment dated 20.12.2008 be partially dismissed and the respondent No. 2 be convicted under Section 452 of IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner took us through the evidence and strenuously argued that the acquittal under Section 452 of IPC is not proper having regard to the evidence on record. In the judgment dated 20.12.2008, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had given a clear finding that complainant Budharam is the father of Jagdish. Narendra Kumar, the son of the complainant is also the brother of appellant Jagdish. The shop in which the incident took place was in the name of Budharam and Jagdish. In the judgment dated 20.12.2008, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had given a clear finding that complainant Budharam is the father of Jagdish. Narendra Kumar, the son of the complainant is also the brother of appellant Jagdish. The shop in which the incident took place was in the name of Budharam and Jagdish. Jagdish often used to visit the shop. He did not enter the shop with preparation to committing any crime. On the basis of the evidence adduced, it cannot be ascertained that he had gone to the shop with any preparation to commit any crime. In paragraph 15 of the judgment a finding has been given and, therefore, Jagdish (non-petitioner No. 2) has been acquitted under Section 452 of I.P.C. 6. As per the prosecution story, incident took place on 6.1.2003. The complainant had conflict with accused Jagdish. On the date of incident, Jagdish and Vishnu came to the shop of the complainant. Co-accused Vishnu accompanied Jagdish. There was some altercation. Jagdish took out the stool and hit the complainant. Complainant received abrasion on his nose. It is alleged that co-accused Vishnu also slapped the complainant. On his shout, his son witnesses Narendra Kumar and Vijay Kumar came to rescue the complainant. Budhram could not be examined as he died before his evidence could be recorded. Vishnu is the tenant of non-petitioner No. 2 Jagdish. 7. Keeping in view that Jagdish is the son of Budhram, the visit to the shop of Budharam cannot be termed as criminal stress-pass with preparation to commit offence. 8. In revision scope is very narrow. This power does not ordinarily allow interference with the judgments of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. The interfere with the order of acquittal is limited only to exceptional cases when it is found that the order under revision suffers from glaring irregularity or illegality or it has caused miscarriage of justice or it is found that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case or where the Trial Court has illegally shut out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence clinching the issue has been over looked. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined the same in Vimal Singh Vs. Khuman Singh and another, 1999 CRI.L.J.16. 10. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined the same in Vimal Singh Vs. Khuman Singh and another, 1999 CRI.L.J.16. 10. Keeping the facts and circumstances prevailing in this case, this Court is not inclined to invoke the powers under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, revision is disallowed.