Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 77 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Kayum Ali

2014-01-15

BRIJ KISHORE DUBE, SUJOY PAUL

body2014
ORDER 1. Against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.9.2012 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in S.T.No.8/2011 (State of M.P. v. Quam Ali) acquitting the respondent herein/accused from the charge under sections 324 and 326 of IPC, the petitioner herein/State has preferred this application under section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of leave to file appeal. 2. The legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of acquittal has been challenged on the ground of mis-appreciation of the evidence on record. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that though the injuries were caused by the blunt side of the axe, however, the axe is a dangerous weapon, therefore, learned trial Court committed an error in acquitting the respondent from the charge punishable under sections 324 and 326 of IPC. 3. It is transpired from a perusal of the impugned judgment that the accused, Kayum Ali has been charged for the offence punishable under section 324 in alternate 323 of IPC for causing the simple injury by use of an axe to Ayub Khan and also charged for the offence under section 326 in alternate 325 of IPC for causing injury by the same weapon to Irshad Khan. 4. The learned trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the evidence in detail ultimately in the impugned judgment found that the offence charged under sections 324 and 326 of IPC against the respondent herein/accused has not been found proved however, accused has been convicted under sections 323 and 325 of IPC and sentenced to suffer 06 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- respectively and it was ordered that both the jail sentences shall run concurrently. 5. From a bare perusal of the testimony of PW-7 Dr. Sudhir Rathore, it is apparent that injuries caused to injured Ayub Khan and Irshad Khan were caused by means of hard and blunt object. He categorically stated in his cross-examination that the injuries found on the persons of injured could not be caused by a sharp edged weapon. 6. We have carefully gone through the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court and found that the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the charge levelled against the respondent under sections 324 and 326 of IPC is not proved and, eventually, acquitted him. 7. 6. We have carefully gone through the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court and found that the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the charge levelled against the respondent under sections 324 and 326 of IPC is not proved and, eventually, acquitted him. 7. We do not want to deviate from the view taken by the learned trial Court because the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any perversity and illegality in the impugned judgment. 8. Looking to the reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court and the evidence available on record, we found that learned trial Court did not commit any error in acquitting the accused from the charge punishable under sections 324 and 326 of IPC. Even if another view is possible on the same set of evidence, no ground is made out warranting admission of this application for grant of leave to appeal (Referred to Hallu and others v. State of M.P., 1974 JLJ 628 = AIR 1974 SC 1936 ). 9. Therefore, this application for leave to file appeal is dismissed.