Premwati vs Khowaram @ Ramji Lodhi
2022 Latest Caselaw 5715 MP

                     1    Cr.A.No.3688-2021




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT JABALPUR


                         BEFORE
         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
                            &
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI


               Criminal Appeal No.3688/2021
       Between:-

       PREMWATI, W/O LATE INDRA KUMAR
       LODHI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O
       VILLAGE PAWLA, P.S. BELKHEDA,
       DISTRICT JABALPUR (M.P.).


                                         .....APPELLANT
       (BY SHRI M. SHAFIQULLAH, ADVOCATE)

                          AND

     1. KHOWARAM @ RAMJI LODHI, AGED
        ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O OMKAR SINGH
        LODHI, R/O VILLAGE MATA PURHAR,
        POLICE     STATION       BELKHEDA,
        DISTRICT JABALPUR (M.P.)

     2. STATE OF M.P., THROUGH POLICE
        STATION   BELKHEDA,   DISTRICT
        JABALPUR (M.P.)

                                              ....RESPONDENTS
                                     2       Cr.A.No.3688-2021




       (BY SHRI S.S. CHOUHAN, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
       FOR RESPONDENT No.2)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Reserved on                      :      04/04/2022

       Delivered on                     :      20/04/2022

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   JUDGMENT

Challenge in this Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. by appellant is to judgment dated 30.01.2021 passed by XX th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.280/2019 whereby, the respondent No.1 has been acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for complainant/victim while assailing the impugned judgment of acquittal primarily contends that in spite of availability of cogent and reasonable evidence in respect of prosecution, learned trial Judge erred in law in returning a finding of acquittal. It is submitted that inconsistency and embellishments noticed by the trial Court in the direct and circumstantial evidence ought to have been ignored as they did not substantially affect the prosecution case.

3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 09.04.2019 at about 1.00 p.m., quarrel took place between deceased Indra Kumar and Ramji, In the said incident, Ramji assaulted deceased Indra Kumar by an axe. Thereafter, deceased Indra Kumar informed his brother Kalyan Singh, who on receiving said information, reached the place of incident along with Deepak and Ravi. At that time Dasrath (son of deceased Indra Kumar) and Premwati (wife of

deceased Indra Kumar) were also present there. Deceased Indra Kumar was lying in the pool of blood beneath the mango tree. On being asked, deceased Indra Kumar stated that on the issue of finding a way of access to and from the agricultural field, the quarrel took place. Since the deceased was seriously wounded, he was rushed to the Belkheda Police Station in a Jeep (Bolero) and after giving intimation to Police, the deceased was admitted to Natwara Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, Natwara Hospital referred the deceased to Medical College where he died during the course of treatment.

4. On the report of Kalyan Singh, dehati nalsi (Ex.P/24) was written. Thereafter, on 09.04.2019, dehati merg intimation (Ex.P/23) was registered. On the basis of dehati nalsi (Ex.P/24), first information report (Ex.P/20) was registered at Police Station Belkheda in connection with Crime No.121/2019. On 24.04.2019, spot man (Ex.P7) was prepared. Blood stained and plain soil were collected vide seizure memo Ex.P/8.

5. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions wherein charge under Section 302 IPC framed against the acquitted respondent. The prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses.

6. The trial Court found material contradiction in the statements of Premwati (PW 1), Dasrath (PW 4) and Kalyan Singh (PW 13). Seizure witness Mohan Mallah (PW 6) and Motilal (PW 7) did not support the prosecution case. The trial Court did not find any evidence as regards presence of human blood on the axe seized from possession of accused. The trial Court thus held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, which resulted into acquittal of the accused/respondent.

7. Learned trial Judge while marshalling the evidence found that neither of the three prime witnesses Premwati (PW 1), Dasrath (PW 4) and Kalyan Singh (PW 13) were consistent in their statements and in fact all three of these witnesses denied having made any statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. during the investigation. The trial Court, therefore, correctly came to the conclusion that none of the three witnesses were eye-witnesses. The trial Court also found that entire narration of the incident right from its genesis to the perpetration of crime, the said three prime PWs gave contradictory statements which compelled the trial Court to disbelieve their presence at the spot. The seizure witnesses Mohan (Mallah) (PW 6) and Motilal (PW 7) have also not supported the factum of seizure of weapon. Moreso, as regards the FLS report (Ex.P/26 and 27), no witness was produced to prove the same. The trial Court also found that the FSL report returned a finding of human blood stain on the banyan (vest) of the deceased. The trial Court also found that FSL report (Ex.P/27) though found human blood on gauze but no human blood was found on Ex. A (soil), C (axe), D/1 (trouser), D/2 (full shirt) and D/3 (banyan sando). The FSL report further revealed that the alleged blood stain were not red in colour, therefore, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that there was no blood found on the weapon (axe), leading to acquittal of the respondent.

8. From the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court did not find any cogent and convincing evidence to bring home the charges. The offence alleged against the respondent No.1 under Section 302 of IPC could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, it appears that the prosecution hopelessly failed to prove the charges.

9. The scope of interference by this Court in appeals against judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is extremely limited. Just because this Court opine that the respondent No.1 "may be guilty" is not good enough to impel this Court to interfere. It is only when this Court comes to a conclusion that respondent-accused "must be guilty" that interference may takes place. In the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. State of H.P. [2017(3)M.P.L.J. (Cri.) (S.C.) 414], it has been held by Apex Court in para 14 of its judgment as follows:-

"14. In Chandrappa and other vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 MPLJ Online (Cri.) (S.C.) 10= (2007) 4 SCC 415, this Court culled out the general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. The said principles are enumerated below:-

"(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal, Procedure, 1973 put no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and law. (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds','very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.

(5) It two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court."

10. In view of above, no case for interference is made out. The present appeal accordingly stands dismissed by upholding the judgment dated 30.01.2021 passed by XX th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.280/2019.

   (SHEEL NAGU)                                             (MANINDER S BHATTI)
     JUDGE                                                        JUDGE
Biswal



Digitally signed by SHIBA NARAYAN
BISWAL
Date: 2022.04.20 18:56:28 +05'30'