M.Cr.C.No.4404/2012 22.8.13 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 5/1/2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Begamgunj, District Raisen, in Sessions Trial No.250/2009, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”.
for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that respondent leveled baseless allegations of theft upon Bhure and his father and feeling humiliated, Bhure committed suicide by hanging from a Tree.
Report of the incident was lodged by his father Sunderlal, wherein he stated that Bhure had committed suicide consequent upon his slapping.
Learned Government Advocate submitted that the trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the judgment of acquittal deserved to be interfered with.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Government Advocate, we have perused the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.
After appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The definition of abetment of a thing, contained in Section 107 of the IPC reveals that a person abets the doing of that thing, if he (i) instigates (ii) conspires or (iii) aids in the doing of that thing.
In this case, the deceased had committed suicide consequent upon being called as a thief by the respondent.
Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, this might have been reason for committing suicide, but it cannot be said that the act of the respondent amounted to abetment as it did not fall within the definition indicated above.
We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
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)