The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Munshi @ Munna Shah - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1041058
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnSep-04-2013
AppellantThe State of Madhya Pradesh
RespondentMunshi @ Munna Shah
Excerpt:
m.cr.c.no.14712/2012 04.09.13 per b.d.rathi,j shri vijay pandey, deputy 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 31/8/2012 passed by i additional sessions judge, harda, in sessions trial no.83/10, whereby respondents munshi alias munna shah, gaffar shah and sultan shah have been acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 323, 327 and 329 of the indian penal code (“ipc”. for short).prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24/10/10 at about 2 p.m., respondents intercepted the motorcycle of complainant narayan kherwa and upon his refusal to give money for consuming liquor, assaulted him leading to injuries on his nose, mouth and head. anil and sanjay jat present on the spot intervened and the respondents, while threatening to kill the complainant, fled from the spot. upon the information of complainant, crime no.123/10 was registered at police station handia and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed. learned deputy 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 learned deputy advocate general, impugned judgment and record of the trial court were perused. to bring home the charges, prosecution examined narayandas (pw1).sanjay(pw2).anil (pw3) as material witnesses. after considering their evidence and other material available on record, trial court found that the case of prosecution was not trustworthy because evidence of all the witnesses was not only contrary to each other, but was also full with contradictions, omissions and exaggerations. besides this, trial court found sanjay (pw2) to be an interested witness and existence of previous enmity between the parties was also established from the evidence on record. in the aforesaid premises, the trial court found that the 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)
Judgment:

M.Cr.C.No.14712/2012 04.09.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy 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 31/8/2012 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Harda, in Sessions Trial No.83/10, whereby respondents Munshi alias Munna Shah, Gaffar Shah and Sultan Shah have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 327 and 329 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”.

for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24/10/10 at about 2 p.m., respondents intercepted the Motorcycle of complainant Narayan Kherwa and upon his refusal to give money for consuming liquor, assaulted him leading to injuries on his nose, mouth and head.

Anil and Sanjay Jat present on the spot intervened and the respondents, while threatening to kill the complainant, fled from the spot.

Upon the information of complainant, Crime No.123/10 was registered at Police Station Handia and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

Learned Deputy 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 learned Deputy Advocate General, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were perused.

To bring home the charges, prosecution examined Narayandas (PW1).Sanjay(PW2).Anil (PW3) as material witnesses.

After considering their evidence and other material available on record, trial Court found that the case of prosecution was not trustworthy because evidence of all the witnesses was not only contrary to each other, but was also full with contradictions, omissions and exaggerations.

Besides this, trial Court found Sanjay (PW2) to be an interested witness and existence of previous enmity between the parties was also established from the evidence on record.

In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the 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)