Full Judgment
Cr.A.No.1399/2011 26.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J None for the appellant.
Shri C.K.Mishra, Government Advocate for the respondent no.6-State.
Heard on admission.
This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”.) being aggrieved with the judgment dated 31/3/11 passed by Sessions Judge, Umaria, in Sessions Trial No.97/09, whereby respondent Nos.1 to 5 namely Amritlal, Sitaram Singh, Ramadhar Singh, Vijay Singh Gond and Pushpendra Singh Gond have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 302/149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”.
for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on the occasion of Dusshera, after the idol of Goddess Durga was consigned to water, respondent Nos.4 and 5 along with co-accused Suresh Singh Gond, Omprakash Gond, Gangaram and many otheRs.assembled near the tent installed for worshipping the Goddess, and started abusing the Villagers and also assaulted Ramvishal Singh and Viranjan Singh with Gurda.
Ramvishal Singh escaped form the spot.
Next day Viranjan Singh informed Ramvishal that his wife Chironjiabai had been forcibly taken by the miscreants and assaulted leading to her death and her deady body concealed in a sack, was hidden by them in the Jungle.
Ramvishal lodged the report to that effect at Police Station Naurozabad on 6/10/06 and after investigation, charge- sheet was filed.
Learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned judgment was delivered without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserves to be interfered with.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were perused.
Evidence of material witnesses viz.
Ramvishal (PW1).Meenabai (PW2).Chintamani (PW3).Viranjan Singh (PW7).Gulab Singh (PW8).Komal Singh (PW11).Madan Singh (PW15).being full of contradictions, omissions and exaggerations, was not believed by the trial Court.
They also denied the prosecution story.
Dead body of Chironjiabai was already seized on 6/10/06, therefore, recovery of the same at the instance of the respondents on 8/10/06, was not found credible by the trial Court.
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 appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI) JUDGE JUDGE (and)