Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 744 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Dilip

2019-11-01

S.C.SHARMA, SHAILENDRA SHUKLA

body2019
ORDER 1. Heard on I.A. No. 2781/2019, an application for condonation of delay filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of 10 days delay in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal. The application is supported with an affidavit. 2. Considering the reasons assigned in the application and after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, the application for condonation stands allowed. 3. Submissions were also heard on application filed under section 378(3) of CrPC, read with section 14(A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. The application has been filed challenging the judgment pronounced by the Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Ratlam, in Special Case No. 38 of 2012 vide judgment dated 12.9.2018 whereby, the respondents have been acquitted from the charges framed under sections 147, 307 read with section 149 IPC and respondent No. 2 Bhuvesh @ Bhavesh has been acquitted from the charges framed under section 148 of IPC and under section 3(ii)(v) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act and section 25(1-B) (b) of the Arms Act and respondents No. 1 and 4 (Dilip and Jagdish) have been acquitted from the charges framed under section 148 of IPC and under section 3(ii)(v) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act. 5. As per prosecution story, complainant Nathibai, had purchased a house from Dhapubai, the mother of co-accused Mangilal. Mangilal was disputing such sale and due to the dispute complainant did not reside in such house. However, on 8.2.2012, when Nathibai went to the disputed house, accused Dilip informed Mangilal and then Mangilal and accused Bhuvesh @ Bhavesh, came to the spot, started abusing Nathibai and demanded the sale proceeds of the house from her. On refusal, Mangilal inflicted knife blow on the back of the Nathibai and Bhavesh also inflicted knife blow on the hand and face of Nathibai. At that point of time, accused Sitabai and Jagdish arrived and they exhorted Mangilal and Bhavesh @ Bhuvesh to not spare the prosecutrix and kill her then and there Nathibai was rescued by Yusuf. A report was lodged in this regard in the police station. In this matter Mangilal has remained absconder. 6. After recording the evidence, the trial Court has acquitted the accused persons. A report was lodged in this regard in the police station. In this matter Mangilal has remained absconder. 6. After recording the evidence, the trial Court has acquitted the accused persons. In application filed under section 378(3) of CrPC, it has been mentioned that medical specialist has found as many as six incised wounds on the person of Nathibai and there is evidence of prior enmity between Nathibai and accused and these pieces of evidence were not considered by the presiding officer and the accused had wrongly been acquitted. 7. Submissions were heard and original record has been perused. 8. Nathibai (PW1) in her examination in chief has stated that all the accused had inflicted knife wounds on her and she lost consciousness thereafter. However, in the FIR, she states that while Mangilal and Bhavesh @ Bhuvesh were inflicting knife blows on her, Sitabai and Jagdish came and exhorted the assailants that she be not spared and be killed. In her deposition, she categorically states that Jagdish inflicted injury on her but in para 4 of her deposition admits that Jagdish had not uttered any word and was merely standing. 9. Regarding Bhavesh @ Bhuvesh, although she states in her examinationin-chief that he inflicted knife injury on her, she in para 23 of her cross-examination she admits that she did not know Bhavesh, that there was no dispute with Bhavesh @ Bhuvesh and that he was not present on the spot when the incident occurred. 10. In respect of Sitabai, complainant deposes that Sitabai had inflicted injuries on her whereas in FIR Exhibit P-1, she has stated that Sitabai was merely exhorting assailants. The complainant also admits in para 12 that there is enmity between her and Sitabai, as later had fled with the daughter of the farmer. 11. In respect of Dilip also there is discrepancy between FIR and the Court deposition. In FIR it is stated that Dilip had called Mangilal whereas in Court deposition that she stated that Dilip had assaulted her. The only eye witness Yusuf (PW2) has also turned hostile. 12. After duly considering the evidence and material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that there is no prima facie impropriety in the conclusion arrived at by the presiding officer. Hence, no leave against the judgment of acquittal can be granted. The application filed under section 378(3) of CrPC stands rejected.