Full Judgment
M.Cr.C.No.7151/2012.
30.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the applicant-State.
Heard on admission.
This application for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 27/03/2012 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore, in Sessions Trial No.30/2007, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 365/34, 302 in alternative 302/34, 201 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”.
for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 31/12/2006 complainant Vishram Singh lodged a report at police station Ahmadpur that his brother Vikram Singh, between 10.30 to 11 p.m., had gone to irrigate his crops but did not return till morning and despite search, could not be traced.
Thereafter, on 01/01/2007 at 4.30 pm in the Med of field of Malkhan Singh, blood was found and one button of shirt was also seen.
Thereafter, information was received that in the night, accused Ramsingh and Dilip Singh had arranged a party in the field of Ramesh in which Hemsingh, Raju, Babulal, Heeralal, Dilip and Ramesh had participated and these people, due to election rivalry, had abducted his brother for murdering him.
On the aforesaid information missing person report No.01/2007 on which morgue intimation no.1/07 and crime No.2/07 was registered.
After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
Learned Government Advocate argued that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to be interfered with.
The entire case of the prosecution is based only on the evidence of Mohanlal (PW4) and Manohar Bheel (PW5).so called eye-witnesses.
As per the evidence of Mohanlal, when he had gone to answer the call of nature, he had heard the voice to save someone, and rushed and in torchlight saw 4-5 persons viz.
Ramsingh, Bhagwan Singh, Dilip, Hemsingh and Babu Mewada and they had also abused him on lightening of the torch.
His evidence was disbelieved as he did not narrate the incident to anyone and had not seen the deceased on the spot.
Respondent Nos.1 and 4 both are named Dilip and this witness did not state as to which Dilip he had seen.
Further, his conduct of going for answering the call of nature far off in the Jungle despite having the facility nearby his house, appeared unnatural.
Similarly, evidence of Manohar Bheel was discarded by the trial Court not being in conformity with that of Manohar, in as much as, he deposed that he had seen a glowing bulb on the spot and about 8-10 persons were assaulting the deceased.
Moreover, he also did not narrate the incident to anyone.
From the evidence of Vishram Singh (PW3).it was established, that there was political rivalry between the complainant party and the respondents.
Further, as per Forensic Science Lab Report (Ex.P/30).blood grouping could not done on the blood found on the articles seized from respondents Dilip, Hemsingh.
In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perveRs.or palpably unsustainable.
Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view.
As such, no interference is called for with the judgment of acquittal in question.
The application, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI) JUDGE JUDGE (and)