Full Judgment
M.Cr.C.No.2904/2012 22.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri S.K.Kashyap, 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 21/11/2011 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni, in Sessions Trial No.185/2010, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”.
for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22/8/08 a report was lodged by Dev Kumar (PW3).son-in-law of Devi Singh as to missing of his father-in-law who had left the home on 27/7/08 without informing anybody.
Subsequently, Garun Singh, brother of Devi Singh, upon an information that a bundle of clothes was lying on a Mahua Tree, reached the Jungle and identified the clothes to be that of Devisingh.
He, accordingly, informed the Police and when Police, opened the bundle in presence of Garunsingh and otheRs.a human skull was found therein.
Morgue intimation (Ex.P/12) was recorded at the instance of Garun Singh upon suspicion of death of his brother.
During investigation, white and black hair, a black colour silk thread and pieces of underwear were found in a packet that was lying beneath the Peepal Tree near the spot and from a few paces away 13 pieces of ribs and 11 of spine were also recovered.
After examination of the skull, Dr.
D.K.Sakalle (PW13) opined that it was of a male aged between 40 to 50 yeaRs.Dr.
Pankaj Shrivastava (PW7).after chemically examining the seized skull as well as analyzing the DNA profile of Meera Bai (PW3).opined that Meera Bai was genetically connected with the person whose skull was under examination as his daughter.
After investigation, respondents were apprehended and after investigation, 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.
After appreciating the entire evidence on record, the trial Court in paragraph 41 of the impugned judgment, found that the evidence of eye-witnesses viz.
Preetam Singh (PW15) and Hariram (PW16) and that of Garun Singh (PW17) was full of material contradictions and omissions.
The Court further found that Garun Singh had not raised any suspicion against the respondents for a period of 2 years when his police statement was recorded and offence against unknown persons was registered after receipt of DNA report after two yeaRs.Accordingly, the trail 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.
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)