Rajaram Shakya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2797 MP

                                        1
              The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
                                                       Cr.A.No.1918/2021

               (Rajaram Shakya Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior dated 29.06.2021
      Shri Sandeep Kumar Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the
appellant.
      Shri Rajesh Shukla, Dy. Advocate General          for respondent

No.1/State.

Per Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal:

Heard on admission.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant (father

of the deceased) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 3 rd February,

2021 passed by the Special Judge, Morena, in SCATR No.200234/2016

acquitting respondent No.2 from the charge under Section 302 of IPC

and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Prosecution case in short is that complainant Rajaram Shakya,

father of deceased Anoop Shakya @ Lada, on 15.9.2016 lodged one

written complaint at police Station, Sabalgarh, Distt. Morena, to the

effect that he is retired from Electricity Department. On 14.9.2016 at 6

in the morning accused Monu Rawat (respondent No.2) came to his

house and took his son Anoop @ Lada along with him. Afterwards, at

9.30 am he along with his family went to village Banga, Vijaypur, and

his son deceased Anoop @ Lada remained at Sabalgarh. At 3.15 pm

father of accused Monu, namely Munna Rawat, telephonically

informed him that his son Anoop died due to electrocution. He along

with his family immediately rushed to Sabalgarh and on reaching the

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Cr.A.No.1918/2021

house, they saw that deceased Anoop was lying dead in the courtyard.

Thereafter, he informed the police and police came to the spot and

made inquiry. Autopsy was done. In his complaint, complainant

doubted that Monu Rawat had killed his son by electrocution. On the

basis of his written complaint, FIR against Monu Rawat under Section

302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act was registered and matter

was investigated. As per postmortem report, deceased died due to

electric current.

3. Prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses, namely Arvind

(PW-1), Kapoori (PW-2), Satendra @ Taso (PW-3), Vandan Shakya

(PW-4), Laxmi (PW-5), Vijay Shakya (PW-6), Ragini (PW-7), Rajaram

Shakya (PW-8), Deependra @ Kadu (PW-9), Pawan Balmiki (PW-10),

Head Constable Bhagwansingh Dhakad (PW-11), Dr.S.K.Karkhur (PW-

12), Police Inspector Shailendra Singh Kushwah (PW-13), Sub-

Inspector R.D.Maurya (PW-14), Santosh Kushwah (PW-15), Smt.

Ramdevi Shakya (PW-16) and Smt. Rajkumari Shakya (PW-17).

4. Prosecution witnesses Arvind (PW-1), Kapoori (PW-2), Satendra

@ Taso (PW-3), Deependra @ Kadu (PW-9), Pawan Balmiki (PW-10)

and Smt. Ramdevi Shakya (PW-16) did not support the prosecution

case and declared hostile. Leading questions were put to them, but

nothing came out from their statements to support the prosecution case.

5. Statement of Vandana (PW-4), wife of the deceased Anoop

Shakya, is full of omissions and contradictions. There is variance in her

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Cr.A.No.1918/2021

statement with regard to timing of the phone call made by her husband.

She stated that first call was made at 9 and thereafter second call was

made at 1.30 when she could not talk with her husband as somebody

snatched the mobile from her husband, but in her statement (Ex.D/1)

she stated that at about 2.30-3.00 she received call of her husband on

the mobile of her mother. Similarly in her examination-in-chief she

stated that her husband told her that accused is beating him by stick

(Danda), but in her statement (Ex.D/1) she told that her husband

informed her that accused is giving electric shocks to him. She admits

in cross-examination that her father-in-law called at about 3.20 and

informed that her husband died due to electrocution. No call record is

on record. In such circumstances, her testimony appears to be based on

the information of others and does not inspire confidence.

6. Admittedly, Laxmi (PW-5), wife of complainant Rajaram, Vijay

Shakya (PW-6), Ragini (PW-7), sister-in-law of the deceased, Rajaram

Shakya (PW-8), father of the deceased, and Smt. Rajkumari Shakya

(PW-17) are not the eye-witnesses and their source of information is

Kapoori (PW-2), who as stated above has not supported the prosecution

story and declared hostile. Further, Rajaram Shakya (PW8) in his cross-

examination has specifically admitted that he did not see how his son

was electrocuted and made this statement that accused killed his son by

giving electric shocks on the basis of information from Kapoori. He

never saw accused Monu in his house.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Cr.A.No.1918/2021

7. Looking to the overall evidence available on record, this Court is

of the considered opinion that there is no material available on record

warranting admission of this appeal. Trial Court has not committed any

illegality in acquitting respondent No.2 from the charge under Section

302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the Act.

8. The scope of interference against the acquittal of criminal

charges is extremely limited as explained by the Apex Court in the case

of Hakeem Khan and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2017) 5

SCC 719, relevant portion of which is reproduced below for

convenience and ready reference :-

12. For all these reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court clearly fell in grave error in setting aside the acquittal in the present case. We have to remind ourselves that the law on reversal of acquittals is well settled and is stated in many judgments, but one of them needs to be quoted here. In Murugesan Vs. State (2012) 10 SCC 383 this court went into the meaning of different expressions- "erroneous", "wrong" and "possible", and has stated the law as follows:-

33. The expressions "erroneous", "wrong" and "possible" are defined in Oxford English Dictionary in the following terms: "erroneous.- wrong; incorrect. Wrong.- (1) not correct or true, mistaken. (2)unjust, dishonest, or immoral.

Possible.- (1) capable of existing, happening, or being achieved.

(2) that may exist or happen, but that is not certain or probable.

34. It will be necessary for us to emphasise that a possible view denotes an opinion which can exist or be formed irrespective of the correctness or otherwise of such an opinion. A view taken by a court lower in the hierarchical structure may be termed as erroneous or wrong

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Cr.A.No.1918/2021

by a superior court upon a mere disagreement. But such a conclusion of the higher court would not take the view rendered by the subordinate court outside the arena of a possible view. The correctness or otherwise of any conclusion reached by a court has to be tested on the basis of what the superior judicial authority perceives to be the correct conclusion. A possible view, on the other hand, denotes a conclusion which can reasonably be arrived at regardless of the fact whether it is agreed upon or not by the higher court. The fundamental distinction between the two situations have to be kept in mind. So long as the view taken by the trial court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether the High Court agrees with the same or not, the view taken by the trial court cannot be interdicted and that of the High Court supplanted over and above the view of the trial court."

9. Accordingly, the judgment of acquittal dated 3 rd February, 2021

passed by Special Judge, Morena, in SCATR No.200234/2016 is

hereby affirmed. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

                   (Sheel Nagu)                          (Deepak Kumar Agarwal)
                      Judge                                    Judge
 ms/-


MADHU SOODAN
PRASAD
2021.07.01
19:29:42 -07'00'