Full Judgment
M.Cr.C.No.280/2013 20.09.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Vijay Pandey, Dy.
Advocate General 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 11/10/2012 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No.227/11 whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26/12/10 at about 9.30 p.m., respondent filthily abused complainant Mohd.
Abid while he was standing near Vishal Marriage Hall and upon his objection Shahdjad, younger brother of the respondent also came there and started abusing him and, thereafter, respondent, with intention to cause his death, stabbed him in the stomach.
Report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Hanumanganj, whereupon Crime was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
Learned Dy.
Advocate General 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 the learned Dy.
Advocate General, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were perused.
Eye-witness Mohd.
Akram (PW1).who was the brother of injured Mohd.
Abid, admitted in para 7 of his evidence that he had not seen the incident.
Naved (PW3) and Mohd.
Salim (PW4) were declared hostile.
Evidence of Mohd.
Abid (PW2) was also discarded by the trial Court as it was full with contradictions, omissions and exaggerations.
It was also not opined by the doctor that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary couRs.of nature to cause death of complainant.
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)