The State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramswaroop

Heard on admission.

This is an application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Code” for short) against the acquittal of respondent no. 1 of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act and respondents 2 to 7 of the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The corresponding judgment was passed by I Additional Judge to the Court of I Additional Session Judge, Panna, in Sessions Trial No. 20/1995 on 30.4.2012

As per the private complaint filed by Pahalwan Singh in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panna, on 29/10/91, at about 6.30 a.m, respondents, while being armed with deadly weapons, constituted an un-lawful assembly and, in furtherance of its common object, respondent Vijay Kumar Sharma caused the death of Malkhan Singh by firing from a 12 bore gun, licensed in the name of his father respondent Ramswarup Sharma. The brawl had ensued upon the attempt of Malkhan to outrage the modesty of Chunkubai, upon whose shrieks, Balvant Singh, Jagannath Singh, Khet Singh etc. reached the spot. At that juncture, respondents reached to support Malkhan Singh, and caused injuries to Pahalwan Singh and Jagannath by Axe and Lathis. Malkhan Singh caused injury on the right hand of complainant, while Surendra Singh caused Lathi injury on his right leg and Khet Singh was beaten by Padam Singh and Malkhan Singh on his back by Lathis and Chunku Bai was assaulted by Malkhan on her hands and legs. Jagannath was assaulted by Malkhan on both his legs and chest. Upon the exhortation of Surendrasingh, Malkhan threw Balwant on the ground and was attempting to strangulate him, at that time, Khet Singh, Jagannath and Chunkubai tried to rescue Balwant and finding opportunity, Vijay Sharma fired at the buttock of Malkhan from the gun of his father Ramswarup. The case was committed to the Court of Session and after full trial, the impugned judgment was passed.

Learned Government Advocate submitted that the trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the judgment of acquittal deserved to be interfered with.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Government Advocate, we have perused the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.

After appreciating the evidence on record, trial Court found that Khet Singh (PW2), Balwan Singh (PW3) and Chungubai (PW4), being accused in S.T NO. 121/91 registered in respect of murder of Malkhan Singh, were interested witnesses and their evidence was not corroborated by any independent witness. In para 18, trial Court found that though the incident had occurred on 29/10/91, complaint was made on 25/1/92 and despite being released on bail in S.T No. 121/91, no report was lodged by the complainant for a period of two months. The genesis of the incident, as alleged in the complaint, is entering of Malkhan Singh in the house of Chungubai and outraging her modesty, but said Chungubai did not come forward to make any complaint or lodge any report against Malkhan. 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. Besides this, complainant has not preferred to file an application for leave to appeal, under Section 378(4) of the Code, against the impugned judgment of acquittal.

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 perverse 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, therefore, stands dismissed in limine.