Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 842 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Jitesh Kumar Rawat

2014-07-17

SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA, U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. On behalf of the applicant State this petition is preferred under section 378(3) CrPC for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 22.1.2014 passed by First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in Sessions Trial No.142/11 whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charge of the offence punishable under section 364A IPC. 2. Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view his arguments advanced, we have carefully gone through the record of the trial Court. According to the case of the prosecution, one child Anuj aged three years was missing from his residence, on which a missing person report was lodged. Meanwhile some telephonic messages were received by the parental family of the child Anuj, whereby the concerning person who kidnapped Anuj demanded the sum of ransom to release him on which the crime was registered. Subsequently the child Anuj was traced out and on investigation the respondents were arrested and charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence. 3. In order to prove the case on behalf of the prosecution, as many as 16 witnesses were examined but it is apparent that in order to prove the case, concerning boy Anuj was neither produced nor examined by the prosecution and the persons examined from the parental family of the boy namely Ranjit Sirolia [PW 1], Rakesh Gupta [PW 2], Dinesh Kumar @ Ballu [PW 3], Sunder Lal [PW 4], Nisha Gupta [PW 5], Vimla Gupta[PW 6] in these depositions have not stated any incriminating thing against any of the respondents. 4. Although besides the aforesaid evidence prosecution has also examined some of the witnesses relating to the mobile sim, of the memorandum of the respondents recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act and the seizure memo but it is apparent from the impugned judgment that on appreciation of evidence, it was found that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the ingredient of the aforesaid alleged offence against any of the respondents as such the chain of the ingredients of the offence have not been established on record by any admissible evidence, thus considering such situation, the trial Court has acquitted the respondents. 5. After going through the entire evidence, we have not found any material circumstances on which the impugned judgment requires any interference at this stage. 6. 5. After going through the entire evidence, we have not found any material circumstances on which the impugned judgment requires any interference at this stage. 6. For the sake of the arguments if it is deemed that on consideration of the evidence there were two options before the trial Court, out of them by adopting one option favourable to the respondents, they have been acquitted by such Court, then as per the settled proposition only to replace another view contrary to the findings and approach of the trial Court, the leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents could not be granted to the State. It is a settled proposition of the criminal law that where there are two sets of evidence, one is favourable to accused and another is against him, then the Court is bound to adopt the view which is favourable to the accused respondent. 7. In the aforesaid premises we have not found any circumstances in the impugned judgment which requires any interference at this stage. Consequently, this petition being devoid of merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.