Sundari Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

Cr.A.No.1501/2013 26.8.13 Per B.D.Rathi,J Shri R.S.Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri S.K.Kashyap, Government Advocate for the respondent no.1-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 14/05/13 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori, in Sessions Trial No.109/2012, whereby respondents No.3 to 5 namely Krishnadas, Mahendradas and Chand alias Chandrakali have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 294, 302 read with 34 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”.

for short) and respondent No.2 Sagardas, while being acquitted for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC, was convicted under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced accordingly.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19/07/2012 at about 2 pm., when complainant Kalludas had gone to the shop of one Surendra for purchasing Bidi, respondents Sagardas, Krishnadas, Mahendradas and Chandabai abused him filthily saying that his hORS.was damaging their crops, and respondents Sagardas and Krishnadas assaulted him with a Penari, while Mahendra and Chandabai beat him with fists, whereby the complainant fell on the spot.

FiRs.Information Report leading to registration of Crime No.287/12 for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC was lodged by the complainant.

During investigation the complainant died and thereafter charge-sheet in respect of the offences under Sections 294, 323, 506, 325 and 302 read with 34 of the IPC was filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Government Advocate argued 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 was perused.

After appreciation of entire evidence on record, the trial Court found that the recitals of the FIR which was lodged by the deceased himself, were altogether different from the evidence of eye- witnesses produced by the prosecution.

Sundri Bai (PW1).Jyoti Bai (PW2).Bisanlal (PW3) were not the eye-witnesses, but they deposed as if they had witnessed the incident.

Similarly, Mooldas (PW10).was cited as the witness of oral dying declaration, but he testified in his evidence as if he was an eye-witness to the incident.

Surendra Das (PW7) and Jagdish (PW11) were declared hostile.

Evidence of independent witnesses Bhagwan Singh (PW4).Ajay Das (PW5) was also not reliable being full of contradictions, omissions and exaggerations.

That apart, author of FIR viz.

deceased Kalludas was in an intoxicated condition, as deposed by Bhagwan Singh.

Bhagwan Singh and Ajay Das deposed that only respondent Sagardas had assaulted the deceased with a Danda on hi legs and the remaining respondents had come thereafter.

It is an admitted fact that the Kalludas had died 17 days after the date of incident.

No injury was found on vital part of the deceased.

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)