Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 513 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Ashok

2015-04-28

B.D.RATHI

body2015
JUDGMENT : B.D. Rathi, J. 1. This appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant/State being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 17/12/2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Mungaoli, District Guna (M.P.) in ST No. 143/2000 & ST No. 231/2000 whereby accused/respondents have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them under Section 392/397 of IPC. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 27.11.1999 at about 07 pm, when complainant Mohd. Azeez Khan returned after imparting his labour work to Pranpura at that time one Shriram Yadav, resident of village Shankarpur came to him and told that there were some miscreants near the valley of Pranpura who tried to commit loot with him. They alongwith one Sarwar who was the driver of Lallu Seth reached the valley of Pranpura on truck. They saw in the light of truck that three miscreants were trying to commit loot with a person having Rajdoot motorcycle. Sarwar stopped the truck. All the five persons attacked on the miscreants by pelting stones. When Mohd. Azeez lighted the torch, one of three miscreants fired aiming him which hit on his right cheek. When the persons who had stepped down from the truck asked the name of the person having motorcycle, on which that person told himself to be Raghuraj Singh Lodhi. He further told that Rs. 650/- had been snatched by the miscreants from him. 3. On making FIR of the incident by all the complainants, criminal law was set in motion and the matter was taken into investigation. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the court of competent jurisdiction. Then, matter after committal came before the trial court for trial. 4. Accused/respondents abjured their guilt, pleaded complete innocence and preferred trial. 5. In order to bring home the charges, prosecution examined the witnesses, namely, Naveen Kumar Jain (PW-1), Mohd. Azeez (PW-2), Shriram (PW-3), Rajkumar Dubey (PW-4), Nathu (PW-5), Abdul Qadeer (PW-6), Hari Singh (PW-7), B.S. Yadav (PW-8), Rakesh Kumar Sharma (PW-9), Dr. S.P. Siddharth (PW-10), V.S. Sapre (PW-11), Babu Singh (PW-12), Tikaram (PW-13), S.L. Bhagoria (PW-14), Praveen Kumar Sahu (PW-15), Shankar (PW-16), M.M. Singh (PW-17) and Raghuraj (PW-18) whereas defence did not choose to examine any witness. 6. Azeez (PW-2), Shriram (PW-3), Rajkumar Dubey (PW-4), Nathu (PW-5), Abdul Qadeer (PW-6), Hari Singh (PW-7), B.S. Yadav (PW-8), Rakesh Kumar Sharma (PW-9), Dr. S.P. Siddharth (PW-10), V.S. Sapre (PW-11), Babu Singh (PW-12), Tikaram (PW-13), S.L. Bhagoria (PW-14), Praveen Kumar Sahu (PW-15), Shankar (PW-16), M.M. Singh (PW-17) and Raghuraj (PW-18) whereas defence did not choose to examine any witness. 6. After taking into consideration the evidence and the material available on record it was held by the trial court that prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case against the accused/respondents beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted them by the judgment impugned herein. 7. It is submitted by the learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellant/State that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence available on record in its true perspective and the observations made by it in its judgment are not in accordance with law. It is further submitted by him that though accused persons have properly been identified but even then it was observed wrongly by the trial court that identification parade was not conducted in accordance with law. 8. Per contra, Shri Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/respondents supported the judgment passed by the learned trial court and submitted that the appeal preferred by the State may be dismissed. 9. Having regard to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the rival parties, entire record and the judgment rendered by the trial court have been thoroughly gone into. 10. On perusal, it seems that after taking into consideration the contradictions, omissions and exaggerations came into the evidence of Shankar (PW-16) and Raghuraj (PW-18), it was observed by the trial court that identification parade was doubtful. 11. It seems that in para 15 of the judgment it was observed by the trial court that respondent/accused Deshraj was not identified by Raghuraj (PW-18) during the course of doc identification. Accused Ashok was identified wrongly as Deshraj by this witness and for remaining respondents it was stated by Raghuraj (PW-18) that no identification parade, Ex.P.13, was organized. Only he had signed. M.M. Singh (PW-17), Tahsildar, has stated that respondent Sangram was identified by Raghuraj (PW-8) during the parade but no other respondents were identified by anybody. Accused Ashok was identified wrongly as Deshraj by this witness and for remaining respondents it was stated by Raghuraj (PW-18) that no identification parade, Ex.P.13, was organized. Only he had signed. M.M. Singh (PW-17), Tahsildar, has stated that respondent Sangram was identified by Raghuraj (PW-8) during the parade but no other respondents were identified by anybody. It was not stated by Raghuraj (PW-18) that on what basis accused/respondent-Sangram Singh was identified by him because at the time of incident all the culprits had wrapped their faces by cloths and their body by blankets. Mohd Azeez (PW-2) did not support the prosecution story and ultimately declared hostile by the prosecution. None of the accused/respondents has been identified by him. Accused/respondents were not identified by any other witness. It was stated by Abdul Qadeer (PW-6) that an amount of Rs. 50/- was seized from the house of accused/respondent Ashok, on his instigation. Seizure memo Ex.P-9 was prepared but the evidence has not been produced by the prosecution to prove that the currency seized from the possession of Ashok was the same which was looted. 12. Having thus examined the findings recorded by the learned trial court from all the corners and also considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that evidence produced by the prosecution was properly appreciated by the trial court and the view taken by it is apparently a possible view. It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be interfered with unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable. Apart that, it is a trite law that when two views are possible the view which favours the accused should be adopted. Impugned judgment of acquittal was rightly passed by the learned trial court, which is well merited and does not require any interference. 13. Consequently, appeal preferred by the State fails and is hereby dismissed.