Judgment:
M.Cr.C.No.10497/2012 13.09.13 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 25/5/2012 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar in Sessions Trial No.483/10, whereby respondent Govind alias Govind Singh, has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part II and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”.
for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20/6/10 at about 9.30 p.m., at Village Mudiya, respondent not only abused complainant Damodar and threatened to kill him, but also caused grievous injury to him with a Katarna.
The incident was witnessed by Suraj Singh, Khilan Singh, Kamal Lodhi and Mohan Lodhi.
Report (Ex.P/1) of the incident was lodged by complainant at Police Station Khurai and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
Learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to be interfered with.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Government Advocate, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were perused.
Witnesses named in the FIR viz.
Khilan (PW4).Kamal (PW5).Suraj (PW6) and Manohar (PW8).have turned hostile.
Nothing could be elicited in their cross-examination so as to support the prosecution version.
Though complainant Damodar (PW1) deposed in his examination-in- chief that respondent had dealt a Katarna blow at him, yet, in his cross-examination he stated that he could not say whether the said injury was caused inadvertently by the respondent while assaulting a Dog.
Manohar, who is the eye-witness, stated in his evidence that the respondent was beating a Dog with the Katarna and it mistakenly hit the complainant.
Complainant admitted in his cross- examination that respondent was his nephew and there was no previous enmity between them.
In the aforesaid premises, the trial 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)