Full Judgment
M.Cr.C.No.4065/2012 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 24/2/2012 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No.124/2011, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”.
for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29/10/2010 at about 7.30 a.m., FiRs.Information Report (Ex.P/2, for short “FIR”.) was lodged by complainant Munna Yadav, to the effect that some unknown miscreant had killed his son Monu, who had left his home on the previous day at about 5 to 6 p.m.and the dead body was lying near Bus Stand behind the Music School.
Crime No.444/10 was registered and after investigation, respondents were arrested and charge-sheet was filed.
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.The entire case of the prosecution was based upon the circumstantial evidence.
The trial Court found that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons.
Munna Yadav (PW2).father of the deceased and author of FIR, testified that he had narrated the names of the respondents at the time of lodging FIR.
That apart, his deposition in regard to the evidence of last seen, was also disbelieved by the trial Court due to corresponding omission in his police statement.
Similarly, the evidence of last seen of Rajesh Yadav (PW11) and Anil (PW9) was also discarded by the trial Court because of the fact that their police statements were recorded after a delay of 10-15 days and factum of last seen was not mentioned therein.
Another piece of evidence for completing the chain of circumstantial evidence was seizure of clothes of respondents, but, as per the report of Forensic Science Lab, group of blood in the stains found thereon was not ascertained to tally the same with that of deceased.
In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
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)