Full Judgment
Misc.
Criminal Case No.2777/2012 26.8.2013 Per B.D.Rathi, J.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, Government Advocate for the applicant- State.
Heard on admission.
This is an application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Code”.
for short) against the acquittal of respondent of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC').The corresponding judgment was passed by IInd Additional Session Judge, Gadarwara, in S.T.No.33/2011 on 31/12/2011.
As per the prosecution story, report was lodged by Ramsingh at Police Outpost Sihora regarding death of his daughter Rekhabai in the night intervening 18th and 19th of December, 2011.
On the basis of said information, morgue intimation (Ex.P/9) was recorded and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
During investigation, it surfaced that Rekhabai was assassinated by her husband viz.
the respondent herein.
Learned Government Advocate submitted that the trial Court had erred in appreciating the evidence on record and the judgment of acquittal deserved to be interfered with.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate, we have gone through the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.
The entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence.
Smt.
Vandana Lodhi (PW2).daughter of Rekhabai (since deceased).was declared hostile.
Harlal Thakur (PW3) expressed his ignorance about commission of offence and also denied that there was any altercation between the deceased and the respondent on the fateful night.
Ramsingh (PW7).Dinesh Singh (PW5).respectively father and brother of the deceased, deposed that they were informed by Yogesh that respondent had killed Rekhabai, but Yogesh was not examined by the prosecution.
From the evidence of Santosh (PW4) and Dinesh (PW9).it could not be proved that an Iron Riser Pipe and blood stained clothes of the respondent, were seized from the spot.
Further, as per Forensic Science Lab Report (Ex.P/16).it was not proved that the same group of blood, as that of the deceased, was present over the seized articles.
Factum of last seen was also not proved as on the date of incident, the respondent was not at home.
In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete and the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a 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, therefore, stands dismissed in limine.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI) JUDGE JUDGE (and)