1. Heard on admission.
2. The State has preferred the present application for grant of leave to appeal against judgment dated 30.10.14 passed by the Sessions Judge, Morena in S.T No. 116/06, whereby the respondent Maan Singh has been acquitted from the charge of offence under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC.
3. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 25.7.05 Narendra Singh Tomar (PW/3) had lodged an FIR Ex.P/2 at Police Station Noorabad that on that day he was going from Gwalior to Ambah through A.B Road on a motorcycle and the deceased Gar Singh was sitting as a pillion rider. At about 4.15 PM when they were crossing Ghoda Pachad bridge near Noorabad, the respondent alongwith co-accused persons Ramveer and Charan Singh came on a motorcycle and Ramveer fired from a mauser gun, killing the victim Gar Singh. After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed only against accused Charan Singh and Ramveer initially. Vide judgment dated 29.11.11 Charan Singh was acquitted and during the pendency of trial Ramveer had expired. Thereafter, a supplementary charge sheet was filed against the respondent.
4. After considering the submissions made by learned G.A and prosecution evidence, it would be apparent that the witness Narendra Singh Tomar (PW/3) was a key witness, who lodged an FIR, Ex.P/2. He has stated against the accused Ramveer that he fired from the gun and he had stated against Charan Singh that he exhorted the accused Ramveer to fire. There is no allegation made by Narendra Singh Tomar about the overt act of the respondent Maan Singh in FIR Ex.P-2. It is only established that Maan Singh was the person who was with co-accused Ramveer on a motorcycle. Before the trial Court Narendra Singh has stated that the respondent Maan Singh has also exhorted the accused Ramveer, but such version is nothing but an after thought. However, if Maan Singh was present on motorcycle, then the witness Narendra Singh must have told about his overt act in FIR and therefore a doubt was created as to whether the respondent Maan Singh was present with the co-accused persons or not. Also there is no acceptable evidence against the respondent that he did anything to show his common intention with the persons present on motorcycle. His common intention could not be established. The trial Court has rightly found that the prosecution cannot establish the common intention of the respondent with the co-accused Ramveer. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charge of offence under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is not a good case in which leave may be granted. Consequently, the present leave application filed by the State is hereby dismissed at motion stage.
6. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith the record for information and compliance.