Full Judgment
Cr.A.No.2106/2010 & M.Cr.C.No.11210/2010 22.8.13 As per B.D.Rathi,J Shri S.K.Gangrade, Advocate for the appellant in Cr.A.No.2106/10.
Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the respondent no.1-State in Cr.A.No.2106/10, as well as, for applicant-State in M.Cr.C.No.11210/10.
Heard on admission.
Judgment, under challenge, being the same, this common order shall govern the disposal of aforementioned appeal and application for leave to appeal.
Cr.A.No.2106/10 has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”.).whereas M.Cr.C.No.11210/10 is an application, under Section 378(3) of the Code, against the judgment dated 11/8/10 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad, in Sessions Trial No.227/08, whereby the accused persons have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 in alternative 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”.
for short).while all the accused persons, except Suresh and Bharat, have been convicted under Section 324 of the IPC, whereas accused Bharat has been convicted under Section 323 of the IPC on two counts, and sentenced accordingly.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25/5/08 at about 7.30 a.m., when complainant Satyanarayan was removing rooftiles from his house, accused Vinay and Bharatji, respectively armed with Baka and Lathi arrived at the spot, abused and objected on removal of the same.
Thereafter, Vinay inflicted Baka blows on the head, shoulder and back of Satyanarayan, whereas, Bharatji dealt Lathi on his back, legs and cheek.
As Dheeraj, Hakam and Brajmohan came forward to intervene, Madan wielded Lathi twice on the left arm of Dheeraj, while, Narmada Prasad inflicted Baka blow on his head, and, Hakamsingh was assaulted by Vinay and Narmada and when Brajmohan came forward to rescue, he was also assaulted with Baka.
Learned counsel for the appellant, as well as learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the accused persons should have been convicted under Section 307 of the IPC.
According to them, the accused persons, also ought to have been convicted under Section 325 of the IPC for causing fracture on the hands of Maansingh.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have gone through the impugned judgment and evidence on record.
As far as acquittal of the accused persons of the offence under Section 307, IPC is concerned, the same is justified, in view of the fact that the doctor has not opined that the injuries sustained by the victims were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary couRs.of nature.
Moreover, offence under Section 325 of the IPC is also not made out, as neither in the FiRs.Information Report (Ex.P/1) not in the evidence of complainant Satyanaryan, there is any description about the injuries received by Maan Singh.
Dr.N.Hasan (PW13) has deposed that Maan Singh had received fracture on his left ulna bone and second metacarpal bone as per X-ray reports (Ex.P/30 & P/32).However, Maan Singh, in his evidence, has not attributed the said injuries to any of the accused persons.
Moreover, in the medical examination, Dr.
Rekha Singh (PW12).vide report (Ex.P/27).had only noticed bruises corresponding to the aforesaid injuries.
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 order of acquittal in question.
The appeal, as well as the leave application, being devoid of any merit and substance, stand dismissed.
Copy of the order be retained in the connected M.Cr.C.(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI) JUDGE JUDGE (and)