State Of M.P. vs Sunil Jain And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 319 Bom

JUDGMENT

S.A. Naqvi, J.

1. Appellant/State has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 14-7-1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha in Sessions trial No. 1 of 1992 whereby, the respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of IPC and respondents Manoj Rajput, Anil Sengar and Dippu alias Devendra Singh have been acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34 of IPC.

2. Prosecution case, in short is that on 10th July, 1991, a reception dinner was going on of the marriage of Digvijay Singh Chauhan (P.W. 1). In the reception party, Dipak Sharma and respondent Manoj Rajput started quarreling. The persons present there intervened. Later on, Manoj Rajput went out side from the venue of reception. After sometime, respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki and Anil Sengar came there and hurled filthy abuses. Respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki took out a Katar to inflict injury. Digvijay Singh snatched Katar from respondent Sunil alias Takki. Digvijay Singh and his brother Ranvijay Singh (P.W. 7) were taking respondent/accused Sunil Jain alias Takki on motorcycle to police station, Basoda. On way to police station near Tarataran Jain Chaityalaya respondent-accused Dippu alias Devendra Raghuvanshi asked Digvijay Singh that where he is taking Sunil Jain alias Takki. At this juncture, respondent Dablu alias Jitendra Tomar reached on the spot and they started talking. Suddenly, respondent Sunil alias Takki slapped Ranvijay Singh. Respondent Dippu alias Devendra Raghuvanshi took out a knife from his pocket and handed over it to the respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki. At this juncture, brother-in-law of Digvijay Singh deceased Gopal Singh Kushwah reached on the spot. Respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki, Anil Sengar, Dabboo Tomar and Manoj Rajput were beating and scuffling with Ranvijay Singh. Deceased Gopal Singh tried to intervene to save Ranvijay Singh. Respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki dealt a knife blow near the right collar bone on the chest of Gopal Singh. Gopal Singh sustained injury and the blood was oozing out from the injury.

3. Digvijay Singh (P.W. 1) and Ranvijay Singh (P.W. 7) took injured Gopal Singh by an autorickshaw to Civil Hospital. Digvijay Singh went to Basoda Police station and lodged FIR Ex. P/1 on 10-7-1991 at about 9.10 p.m. A Katar was seized from Digvijay Singh. Dr. Vimal Chand Vatsalaya on 10-7-1991 at about 8.50 p.m. examined Gopal Singh Kushwah and found following injuries on his person as per medical report Ex. P/5.

Penetrating wound one in number 3.5 cm x 2 cm thoracic cavity deep soft blood clot present in the wound. On cleaning the wound, fresh blood was present with emitting air bubbles situated obliquely over the upper outer odorant of right side of the chest below the lateral l/3rd of clavicle and 3.5 cm above from the right anterior axillary fold. Margins smooth clean-cut, well defined and averted. Direction of the wound detected with the help of rubber cathodal. The direction forward, downward and medially. Surgical emphysema present over the right side of the chest, neck and right side of face. Red bright blood was present on the mouth.

4. On 10-7-1991, at about 9.12 p.m. Gopal Singh succumbed to the injuries. Merg intimation Ex. P/6 has been forwarded to the Police Station Basoda by Dr. Vatsalaya. Initially, the case was registered under Section 307/34 of IPC but after the death of Gopal Singh, offence has been converted under Section 302 and 302/34 of IPC. On 11-7-1991, inquest memo of dead body of Gopal Singh Kushwah was prepared. Dr. K.K. Shrivastava on 11-7-1991 conducted autopsy of deceased Gopal Singh Kushwah and found following injuries on his person as per Postmortem report Ex. P/8.

One stitched wound of size about 3.5 cm above the right axillary fold right side. Wound is obliquely placed. No bleeding from ear or nostril was present. On removal of stitch, one penetrating wound size 3.5 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep margin sharp clear-cut well defined and smooth. Blood clots present in the wound. Direction of the wound was forward downward, and medially by cutting the skin, subcutaneous facia, deep facia, deltoid muscle, pectoralis major muscle and intercoastal muscle, fracture of right rib (7 cm to costochondral junction) pleura, lung apicontour part of right lung (tear of lung size 2.5 cm 1 cm x commensurating with branches);

5. Spot map was prepared. Patwari also prepared spot map. Statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. Clothes of deceased in sealed packet were seized as per ex. P/9. Respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki was arrested as per arrest memo Ex. P/14. On interrogation, respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki on 15-7-1991 disclosed that he has hidden a knife near the water tank in the house of Basant and he is ready to get it recovered as per memorandum Ex. P/15. On the same day at the instance of respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki a knife was recovered. AT-shirt was seized at the instance of Sunil Jain alias Takki from the house of one Draupadi Bai as per seizure memo Ex. P/17. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL Sagar.

6. After completion of trial, chargesheet under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC was filed in the Court of CJM, Basoda who committed the case to the Court of sessions for trial.

7. Learned trial Court framed charge under Section 302 of IPC against respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki and under Section 302/34 of IPC against rest of the respondents.

8. Respondents abjured the guilt. Their defence is that they have been falsely implicated due to rivlary and enmity. Prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Respondents did not choose to examine any witness in their defence.

After hearing both the parties and perusing evidence, learned trial Court acquitted respondents of the charge levelled against them.

9. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellant/State has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the impugned judgment is against law and principle of natural justice and material on record, learned trial Court did not appreciate prosecution evidence in right perspective, learned trial Court erred in disbelieving prosecution evidence which was corroborated by medical evidence, prosecution witnesses corroborated prosecution story, learned trial Court on trivial contradictions disbelieved the prosecution witnesses, learned trial Court has committed perversity and illegality in passing impugned judgment.

10. Learned Counsel for the respondents supported impugned judgment and he argued that the learned trial Court did not commit any illegality or perversity in passing impugned judgment. He prayed to dismiss the appeal and confirm impugned Judgment of acquittal.

We have heard both the parties at length and perused impugned judgment, evidence and material on record.

11. Digvijay Singh (P.W. 1), Ravindra Bahadur Singh (P.W. 6), Ranvijay Singh (P.W. 7) and S.K. Jain (P.W. 8) deposed that Gopal Singh sustained knife injury near right collar bone in chest. It has also come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that Gopal Singh succumbed to the injuries in Ganj Basoda Civil Hospital. Dr. V.C. Vatsalya (P.W. 2) on 10-7-1991 at about 8.57 p.m. medically examined Gopal Singh Kushwah and found one penetrating wound 3.5 cm x 2 cm x thoracic cavity on right side of chest. Blood clot was present. On cleaning blood clot, fresh blood was oozing from the wound. Margins of wound were clean cut and averted. The condition of Gopal Singh was serious and he was referred to surgical specialist but at about 9.12 p.m. Gopal Singh succumbed to the injuries. Injury was caused by sharp edged weapon. Statement of this witness is corroborated by medical report Ex. P/5. Their testimony is reliable and it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 10-2-1991 in the night, Gopal Singh sustained incised wounds over right side of his chest which was caused by hard and sharp object and later on, he succumbed to the injury. Dr. K.K. Shrivastva on 11-7-1991, conducted post-mortem of Gopal Singh Kushwah. He also found stitched wound measuring 3 cm near right clavical bone of chest. The wound was vertical. On opening the wounds, he found incised wound measuring 3.5 cm x 2 cmx cavity deep. Blood clots were present in the wound. Intercoastal muscles were cut and the right rib was fractured. There was a wound measuring 2.5 cm x 1 cm in right lung. All the injuries were antemortem in nature. As per doctor's opinion, the death of Gopal Singh was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to the vital part of the lung within 8 to 12 hours from the time of examination. Statement of this witness is corroborated by post-mortem report Ex. P/8, Merg intimation and inquest memo of dead body of Gopal Singh Ex. P/6 and Ex. P/3. Looking to the nature of injuries and site of injury, we are of the firm view that the injuries on the person of deceased Gopal Singh were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and death of Gopal Singh was homicidal in nature. As per above discussion, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 10-7-1991, Gopal Singh sustained incised wounds over his right chest and he succumbed to the injuries and death was homicidal and injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature that is to say it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that Gopal Singh has been murdered. The finding arrived at by learned trial Court regarding these facts is hereby affirmed.

12. Digvijay Singh (P.W. 1) deposed that on fateful night, reception party of his marriage was in progress in his house. Deepak Sharma and respondent accused Manoj Rajput were also present there. Some wordy quarrel took place between Deepak Sharma and Manoj Rajput. Digvijay Singh intervened and separated both of them. Respondent Manoj Rajput went outside of the venue of reception. Later on, Manoj came along with respondent-accused Sunil Jain alias Takki and Anil Sengar in the reception. They started hurling filthy abuses. Father of Digvijay Singh tried to pacify them. Respondent Anil Jain alias Takki tried to assault by Katar on Janak Singh Chauhan who is father of Digvijay Singh Chauhan. Digvijay Singh Chauhan snatched Katar from Sunil Jain alias Takki. He and his brother Ranvijay Singh (P.W. 7) were taking respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki on motorcycle to Police Station Ganj Basoda.

13. Ranvijay Singh (P.W. 7) also corroborated the testimony of Digvijay Singh. Ravindra Bahadur Singh (P.W. 6) deposed that on the fateful night, reception of the marriage of Digvijay Singh (P.W. 1) was going on. He was up stairs in the house. After hearing noise, he came down stairs and saw that Digvijay Singh was on motorcycle and behind him respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki was sitting and behind respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki, Ranvijay Singh was sitting. They were taking respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki to Police Station Ganj Basoda. This fact has also been mentioned in FIR Ex. P/1. As per prosecution story and evidence of prosecution witnesses, it appears that the incident started at the venue of reception dinner of Digvijay Singh (P.W. 1) from where, Digvijay Singh and Ranvijay Singh were taking respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki to Police statioi becayse, he quarrelled and tried to assault the father of Digvijay Singh by Katar.

14. Digvijay Singh (P.W. 1) deposed that he was driving motorcycle. They reached near Jain Chaityalaya near road divider, respondent Devendra Raghuvanshi alias Dippu stopped them and asked that where are you taking respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki. Digvijay Singh replied that we are taking him to Police Station. Devendra Raghuvanshi alias Dippu asked them to solve the matter there only. Digvijay Singh parked motorcycle along the side of the road. At that juncture, respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki told that he has been beaten. At this juncture, respondent Dabboo Tomar, Anil Sengar and Manoj Rajput came on the spot. Respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki slapped Ranvijay Singh (P.W. 2). Meanwhile, brother-in-law of Digvijay Singh deceased Gopal Singh reached on the spot with Ravindra Bahadur Singh (P.W. 6) on bicycle. He also deposed that his younger brother Jaivijay Singh alias Tingu and Surendra Singh alias Mintoo came on the spot. Respondent Devendra Raghuvanshi handed over knife to respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki. Respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki dealt a knife blow on Gopal Singh but Jaivijay Singh alias Tingu took that assault on his hand. Respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki dealt second knife blow near the right collar bone on the chest of Gopal Singh. Blood started oozing from the injury of Gopal Singh. He along with Ranvijay Singh took injured Gopal Singh to Civil Hospital Vidisha by an auto rickshaw. Leaving injured in the hospital, he went to the police station Ganj Basoda and lodged FIR Ex. P/1. He also deposed that on the same night, a katar has been seized from him as per seizure memo Ex. P/ 2. The katar was the same katar which was snatched by this witness from respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki at the venue of marriage reception. Ravindra Bahadur Singh (P.W. 6) and Ranvijay Singh (P.W. 7) corroborated the testimony of Digvijay Singh. Both of them also deposed that respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki dealt a knife blow on the right side of the chest of Gopal Singh. Ranvijay Singh (P.W. 7) also deposed that prior to the main incident of assault by knife, respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki slapped him.

15. Shyam Narayan (P.W. 9), Surendra Kumar (P.W. 10), Ramnarayan (P.W. 11) and Jagdish Sohane (P.W. 12) turned hostile. They are not supporting either prosecution or respondents on material points. Though learned AGP cross-examined these witnesses, but he could not extract anything in favour of the prosecution. Learned trial Court rightly held that these witnesses do not help in any way to prosecution and rightly brushed aside their testimony. Surendra Kumar Jain (P.W. 8) in examination in chief presented himself to be an eyewitness. In cross-examination, he specifically admitted that police told him that someone gave knife to respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki and he dealt knife blow to someone. In para 3 of his cross-examination, he deposed that scuffle was going on between Ranvijay Singh and Sunil Jain alias Takki and a person was lying injured on road. Consequently, we are of the view that Surendra Kumar Jain is not an eye-witness and he reached on the spot when Gopal Singh has already received injury and he was lying injured there.

16. There is sufficient evidence on record that both the parties i.e. complainant party and respondents belong to different political party. It is needless to emphasise that who belongs to which political party, but it is established by evidence that both complainant side and respondents are influential persons and they are able to use their political contacts in any of the matter. It is also revealed that due to political rivalry, they have grudge with each other. Digvijay Singh (P.W. 1), Ravindra Bahadur Singh (P.W. 6) and Ranvijay Singh (P.W. 7) are closely related to each other. In aforementioned scenario, testimony of these three witnesses in absence of independent corroboration needs close and cautious scrutiny.

17. Digvijay Singh (P.W. 1) deposed that he and Ranvijay Singh (P.W. 7) leaving deceased Gopal Singh in hospital went to lodge FIR at Ganjbasoda and lodged FIR Ex. P/1. It is clear from the medical evidence and the evidence of Digvijay Singh that when he brought Gopal Singh in hospital, his condition was serious. Gopal Singh was brother-in-law of Digvijay Singh and his condition was precarious in the hospital. Hence, it is not natural that he and Ranvijay Singh leaving Gopal Singh in the hospital immediately would go to lodge FIR. It is clear from the evidence of Dr. V.C. Vatsalaya (P.W. 2) that Digvijay Singh and Ranvijay Singh reached civil hospital Ganjbasoda at about 8.57 p.m. along with deceased. Dr. Vatsalaya immediately started immediately medical examination of Gopal Singh and finished it at 9-12 p.m. FIR Ex. P/l was lodged on 10-7-1991 at 9-10 p.m. Dr. V.C. Vatsalaya (P.W. 2) in para 5 of his cross-examination, deposed that Gopal Singh died at 9-12 p.m. and just after his death, he informed Digvijay Singh about the death of Gopal Singh which means that at 9-12 p.m., Digvijay Singh was present in the hospital consequently it was not possible to lodge FIR in Police Station Basoda at 9-10 p.m. by Digvijay Singh because, looking to the matter of FIR Ex. P/1 and time in between bringing Gopal Singh in Basoda Hospital i.e. 8-57 p.m. and time of lodging FIR at 9-10 p.m. it was not humanly possible that Digvijay Singh would have gone to police station and after lodging FIR he would have come back in the hospital at 9-12 p.m. Author of FIR was not examined for the reasons best known to prosecution, but this fact positively goes against prosecution and leads to strong presumption that FIR is ante-time. We are of the firm view that FIR Ex. P/1 is ante-timed and learned trial Court did not commit any illegality or perversity in holding FIR P/1 antetimed.

18. As per prosecution story, Digvijay Singh (P.W. 1) and Ranvijay Singh (P.W. 7), Dippu alias Devendra Singh handed over knife to Sunil Jain alias Takki who inflicted knife blow over right scapular region of Gopal Singh. Digvijay Singh deposed that when Sunil Jain slapped Ranvijay Singh, Gopal Singh and Ravindra Bahadur Singh reached on the spot, at that juncture and after reaching Gopal Singh and Ravindra Bahadur Singh, respondent Dippu alias Devendra Singh handed over knife to Sunil Jain alias Takki. But, Ravindra Bahadur Singh (P.W. 6) has not corroborated the factum of giving knife by Dippu alias Devendra Singh to Sunil Jain alias Takki. Contrary to that, he deposed that he and Gopal Singh reached on the spot, at that juncture near Geeta Talkies in front of Jain Chaityalaya there was a mob. As soon as they reached the spot, he saw that Sunil Jain tried to inflict knife blow over Ranvijay Singh and Gopal Singh tried to catch the knife. At this juncture, Sunil Jain alias Takki turned towards Gopal Singh and inflicted a knife blow near right collar bone on the chest. He pulled out the knife from the chest of Gopal Singh and started running. It is clear from the evidence of Digvijay Singh (P.W. 1) that Ravindra Bahadur Singh (P.W. 6) reached on the spot when Sunil Jain (P.W. 1) allegedly slapped Ranvijay Singh and thereafter, Dippu alias Devendra Singh allegedly handed over knife to Sunil Jain. But Ravindra Bahadur Singh has not corroborated this fact. He contrary to Digvijay Singh and Ranvijay Singh deposed that first of all respondent Sunil Jain tried to inflict knife blow on Ranvijay Singh and Gopal Singh intervened, then respondent Sunil Jain inflicted knife blow over Gopal Singh. If as per Digvijay Singh and Ranvijay Singh, Dippu alias Devendra Singh would have handed oyer knife to respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki, this fact also might have been corroborated by Ravindra Bahadur Singh. It is clear from the evidence that there is material contradiction regarding aforementioned fact in the evidence of Ravindra Bahadur Singh from the evidence of Digvijay Singh and Ranvijay Singh. Ranvijay Singh (P.W. 7) in para 34 of his cross-examination has stated that Dippu alias Devendra Singh was sitting on the motorcycle and he neither came down from the motorcycle nor went near Gopal Singh. He also admitted that respondent Sunil Jain during incident did not go near Dippu alias Devendra Singh. He also deposed that Dippu did not exhorted respondent Sunil Jain. He also admitted that Dippu did not try to assault him by knife as soon as Gopal Singh caught hold of respondent Sunil Jain, neither Dippu tried to hand over knife to Sunil Jain nor Sunil Jain tried to inflict knife blow on him (Ranvijay Singh). The statement of Ranvijay Singh is very clear and there is no ambiguity in his statement. This statement of Ranvijay Sihgh demolishes part of the prosecution story that Dippu alias Devendra Singh handed over knife to respondent Sunil Jain and Sunil Jain inflicted knife blow either on Gopal Singh or Ranvijay Singh. Though Shyamnarayari Acharya (P.W. 9), S.K. Sharma (P.W. 10), Ramnarayan (P.W. 11) and Jagdish Suhana (P.W. 12) are declared hostile, but they are specifically not corroborating presence of Dippu alias Devendra Singh on the spot and handing over a knife by him to respondent Sunil Jain. Looking to the evidence of Ravindra Bahadur Singh, weight can be given to the statement of these hostile witnesses. On going through the statements of Gyanchand, Bharat Arora, Kamalsingh Raghuvanshi and Shyamnarayan Acharya Advocate recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. it is revealed that they did not depose that Dippu alias Devendra Singh was present on the spot and handed over knife to respondent Sunil Jain. This fact has not been mentioned by these witnesses in their police statements. It is true that the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. is not conclusive evidence but omission regarding material fact in these statements are very material.

19. Uunproved documents can be used by the defendant during course of argument and hence it is relevant to go through these statements. Since inception, prosecution story is two fold one set of witnesses supported that the knife was handed over by Dippu alias Devendra Singh to respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki who inflicted knife blow on the person of Gopal Singh and second set of witnesses is not showing presence of Dippu alias Devendra Singh on the spot and fact of handing over of knife by Dippu alias Devendra Singh to respondent Sunil Jain who on his turn inflicted knife blow to Gopal Singh. It is settled principle of law that if prosecution case is based on two sets of evidence and on the face of evidence if two views are possible, then the view which is favourable to defence should be acted upon. It is proved by the evidence of Digvijay Singh that he snatched katar from respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki at his reception venue and on the spot, respondent Sunil Jain was bare handed. It is not the prosecution story that Sunil Jain was having another thing in his pocket and he took out knife and assaulted Gopal Singh. There is ample evidence on record that about 100 to 50 persons were gathered on the spot and scuffle took place between some persons from the mob and complainant side. It has also come on record that some of the persons from mob unsuccessfully tried to took out knife. Thus, looking to the aforementioned circumstances and two set of statements of witnesses, it is possible that someone from the gathering would have taken out knife and would have assaulted the deceased Gopal Singh. This presumption cannot be ruled out looking to the facts and circumstances and evidence on record. Presence of Dippu alias Devendra Singh on the spot and factum of handing over of knife by him to respondent Sunil Jain is not proved beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution. Evidence of Digvijay Singh and Ranvijay Singh is not reliable in this regard. As per above discussion, learned trial Court did not commit any illegality in giving the finding in this respect.

20. As per prosecution, incident took place before Jain Chaityalaya which is situated on main road. It is clear from the spot map Ex. P/7 that Jain Chaityalaya is situated on main road opposite to the place of incident and road divider. In the spot map, Geeta Talkies has not been shown. Digvijay Singh and Ranvijay Singh (P.W. 7) deposed that the incident took place in front of Jain Chaityalaya but Ravindra Bahadur Singh (P.W. 6) deposed that near Geeta Talkies in front of Jain Chaityalala incident took place. In para 10 of the cross-examination, he specifically deposed that the mob was near Geeta Talkies. He told police that mob was in front of Jain Chaityalaya, but this fact is not mentioned in his previous statement Ex. D/2 recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. Contrary to that, he stated that the mob was in front of Geeta Talkies. Consequently, as per this witness, incident took place in front of Geeta Talkies. As per Ex. P/7, Geeta Talkies is not near Jain Chaityalaya. Patwari Prem Kumar Khare who prepared spot may Ex. P/7, specifically deposed that the spot of the incident is at main road. He also specifically deposed that Geeta Talkies is in side the lane perhaps which is shown in Ex. P/7 (perpendicular to main road). He also deposed that before Geeta Talkies, Suryavanshi Talkies is situated. After Suryanshi Talkies 2-3 shops are there. After these shops, one house is situated. After the house some open laid is lying and thereafter, one shop is situated. After this shop, Geeta Talkies is situated. If it is so, there is huge difference between the spot shown in Ex. P/7 and Geeta Talkies. Consequently clear from the prosecution evidence that Ravindra Bahdaur Singh is changing spot of incident and there are two spots of incident as per two sets on evidence which is fatal to the prosecution.

21. It is clear from the evidence of Digvijay Singh that weapon allegedly used by respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki is article 'A', Dr. V.C. Vatsalya (P.W. 2) and K. K. Shrivastava who conducted MLC and autopsy of Gopal Singh respectively, specifically deposed that the injury on the person of Gopal Singh cannot be caused by knife article 'A' because, one edge of knife is sharp and other edge of knife is blunt. Injury caused on the person of Gopal Singh can only be caused by double edged knife. It means that knife seized by V.K. Sharma (P.W. 12) from the possession at the instance of respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki is not same weapon by which injury was caused on the person of Gopal Singh, which leads to the conclusion that the knife allegedly used in the incident by Sunil Jain alias Takki has not been seized during investigation. Looking to the above discussion in preceding paras and infirmity in the prosecution statements, non-seizure of weapon used in the incident carries weight and reflects adversely on the prosecution evidence and prosecution case.

22. Digvijay Singh (P.W. 1) admitted in cross-examination that respondent Manoj Rajput came along with Shersingh to attend reception. He also deposed that Manoj did not misbehave with his brother-in-law. He also deposed that near divider where he stopped motorcycle, respondent Manoj was not present. He also admitted that no quarrel took place between Anil and anyone else in the reception. He also deposed that when he stopped motorcycle, near divider Anil was not present there. He also admitted that there was no enmity between respondent Anil Sengar and his brother-in-law. He also admitted that on the spot which is opposite to Jain Chaityalaya, Manoj, Anil, and Dabboo alias Jitendra Tomar did not quarrel with them. But according to FIR Ex. P/1, Manoj Rajput quarrelled at the venue of reception and after that, he went out and came back with Sunil Jain and Anil Sengar. But Digvijai Singh has deposed against his previous version on oath. He specifically deposed that these facts mentioned in the FIR are wrong. He also deposed that it is wrongly mentioned in the statement and FIR that Anil Sengar, Manoj and Jitendra Tomar scuffled with Ranvijay Singh which shows that prosecution witnesses are using pick and choose method and leaving some respondents and involving Dippu alias Devendra Singh and Sunil Jain alias Takki in the crime. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses from their previous statements and with the statements of other witnesses. In this respect, paras 46, 47, 51, 53, 55 and 56 of the statements of Digvijay Singh are relevant which reveal contradiction and omission in his statement. He also admitted in para 62 that he has wrongly mentioned in his previous statement that Sunil Jain tried to run away from the spot and they caught hold of him. He also admitted that in report Ex. P/1, factum of scuffle and involvement of other accused persons with Sunil Jain is wrongly mentioned which shows that some part of the FIR Ex. P/1 and previous statement of this witness contained some false facts. On going through the statements of Ranvijay Singh (P.W. 7) and Ex. D/2, statements of Digvijay Singh (P.W. 1) and Ravindra Bahadur Singh (P.W. 6), it is revealed that there is material contradiction and omission in the statement of Ranvijay Singh and previously recorded statements of Digvijay Singh and Ravindra Bahadur Singh.

23. Digvijay Singh (P.W. 1) in para 6 of his statement recorded in the Court has stated that when scuffle was going on between Ranvijay Singh (P.W. 7) and Sunil Jain, at that time Sunil Jain was bare handed. But as per FIR, the talk was going on between Digvijay Singh and respondent Sunil Jain. At this juncture, respondent Sunil Jain slapped Ranvijay Singh and Dippu alias Devendra Singh handed over knife to respondent Sunil Jain, but contrary to that, Digvijay Singh deposed that when scuffle was going on between Ranvijay Singh and respondent Sunil Jain, respondent Sunil Jain alias Takki was not having knife and he was bare handed, which falsify the version and contents of FIR. This fact also falsifies the factum or starting scuffle by Sunil Jain, Anil Sengar, Manoj and Dbboo alias Jitendra Tomar with Ranvijay Singh. It is not proved by the evidence of Digvijay Singh that scuffle took place between Sunil Jain and Ranvijay Singh and respondent Dippu alias Devendra Singh handed over knife to respondent Sunil Jain. If it is true then, it falsifies the fact that during scuffle, when Gopal Singh tried to intervene, respondent Sunil Jain inflicted knife blow near his right collar bone on chest. Though Digvijay Singh is deposing that first assault of knife by respondent Sunil was stopped by his brother Jaivijay but this fact has not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P/1. It has not been mentioned in FIR Ex. P/1 that second assault was inflicted by knife causing injury on the chest of Gopal Singh. This FIR which is full of contradiction and omissions with statements of prosecution witnesses which weaken prosecution case.

24. It is clear from the evidence that Digvijay Singh just got married and reception of his marriage was going on. It is quite unnatural that newly wedded bridegroom will leave reception venue to take a miscreant to police station. It is clear from the above discussion, that there are material contradictions, omissions, exaggeration and infirmities in the statements of Digvijay Singh, Ranvijay Singh and Ravindra Bahadur Singh. These infirmities also strengthened the false implication of respondents in a murder case. It is clear from the evidence and documents on record that the falsehood is so intermingled with truthfulness that it cannot be separated. Consequently, grain cannot be separated from the chaf. Where such position arises the benefit goes to the defence. There was no gross enmity between complainant and respondents which also give much weight to this notion looking to the aforementioned discussion.

25. Learned PP relying on (State of M.P. v. Dharkole alias Govind Singh) vehemently argued that if there is contradiction between ocular and medical evidence then, ocular evidence be given primacy over the medical evidence. It is also vehemently argued that while acquitting accused persons, the Court should not give undue stress on argument like political rivalry and non examination of independent witnesses which will not adversely affect the prosecution case. As we have already observed that there are material infirmities, inconsistence, contradictions, omissions and exaggerations in the statements of prosecution witnesses. FIR contents false fact, the weapon used in the incident has not been seized, spot has been changed by prosecution witnesses, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution and it is unnatural that bridegroom shall leave his marriage reception venue, consequently, ocular evidence cannot be given primacy over the medical evidence and the statements of the prosecution witnesses cannot be accepted beyond reasonable doubt. The facts of citation State of M.P. (supra) and case in hand are not identical and this citation does not help prosecution.

26. In (Samghaji Hariba Patil v. State of Karnataka) and 2003 SCC (Cri) 356 : 2003 Cri LJ 813 (Joseph v. State of Kerala), it has been held that High Court while hearing appeal against acquittal has powers to appreciate evidence as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction and while exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the High Court can reappraise the evidence, arrive at finding at variance with those recorded by the trial Court in its order of acquittal and arrive at its own findings, yet, the salutary principle which would guide the High Court is--if two views are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other recording a conviction, the High Court would not interfere merely because, it feels sitting as a trial Court its view would have been one of recording a conviction. It follows as a necessary corollary that it is obligatory on the High Court while reversing an order of acquittal to consider and discuss each of the reason given by the trial Court to acquit the accused and then to dislodge those reasons. Failure to discharge this obligation, constitutes a serious infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. As per above discussion and evidence on record, we are of the view that only view is possible of acquittal in the facts and circumstances of the case. If for the sake of argument, if two views are possible, one of acquittal and other of conviction then, the view of acquittal taken by the trial Court must be accepted.

27. On going through the impugned judgment and material on record, we are of the view that learned trial Court has assigned sound and cogent reasons to disbelieve prosecution evidence and recorded the judgment of acquittal. The trial Court did not commit any illegality or perversity in acquitting the respondents from the charge levelled against them. Impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court is sustainable in the eyes of law.

Appeal has no merit and force, therefore, appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment of acquittal is hereby affirmed. The bail bonds of respondents stand discharged.