Krishna Kumar Chowksey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1050566
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnAug-01-2012
AppellantKrishna Kumar Chowksey
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
criminal appeal no.50/2011 01.08.2012 shri mahendra choubey, advocate for the appellant. shri ajay tamrakar, panel lawyer for the respondent no.1-state. shri s. patel, advocate for the respondents no.2 to 5. heard on admission as well as ia no.211/2011, an application under section 5 of the limitation act. the appellant has preferred this appeal under section 372 of cr.p.c.challenging the acquittal of the respondents no.2 to 5 for the offence under section 307 of ipc. the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 45 days. it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not aware of the judgment, therefore he could not file the appeal within the stipulated period. after considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the judgment was pronounced on 7.9.2010 and the appellant applied for certified copy of the judgment within a week, and therefore it cannot be said that he had no knowledge of the judgment. after receiving the copy of the judgment, the delay has been caused by the appellant for which there is no any explanation given by the appellant. under such circumstances, the application filed under section 5 of the limitation appears to be without any substance. similarly, after perusal of the report given by dr. rajiv kumar rekwar (pw-10).none of the victim sustained any grievous or fatal injury. it is true that the victims arun and rajkumar sustained some injuries on their head, but those injuries were not given with a forceful manner or assault was not repeated on the head or vital parts of the body. under such circumstances, the trial court has rightly acquitted the respondents no.2 to 5 for commission of offence punishable under section 307 of ipc. therefore, present appeal filed under section 372 of cr.p.c.cannot be accepted. consequently, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage and also being barred by limitation in consequence of dismissal of ia no.211/2011. (n.k.gupta) judge ansari
Judgment:

Criminal Appeal No.50/2011 01.08.2012 Shri Mahendra Choubey, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1-State.

Shri S.

Patel, Advocate for the respondents No.2 to 5.

Heard on admission as well as IA No.211/2011, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.challenging the acquittal of the respondents No.2 to 5 for the offence under Section 307 of IPC.

The present appeal has been filed with a delay of 45 days.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not aware of the judgment, therefore he could not file the appeal within the stipulated period.

After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the judgment was pronounced on 7.9.2010 and the appellant applied for certified copy of the judgment within a week, and therefore it cannot be said that he had no knowledge of the judgment.

After receiving the copy of the judgment, the delay has been caused by the appellant for which there is no any explanation given by the appellant.

Under such circumstances, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation appears to be without any substance.

Similarly, after perusal of the report given by Dr.

Rajiv Kumar Rekwar (PW-10).none of the victim sustained any grievous or fatal injury.

It is true that the victims Arun and Rajkumar sustained some injuries on their head, but those injuries were not given with a forceful manner or assault was not repeated on the head or vital parts of the body.

Under such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents No.2 to 5 for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

Therefore, present appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.cannot be accepted.

Consequently, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage and also being barred by limitation in consequence of dismissal of IA No.211/2011.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari