The State Of M.P. vs Ramgopal
2022 Latest Caselaw 12876 MP

                                                             1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                          BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
                                                 ON THE 26th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 253 of 2001

                                   BETWEEN:-
                                   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

                                                                                        .....APPELLANT
                                   (BY SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUBEY - DEPUTY GOVERNMENT
                                   ADVOCATE)

                                   AND
                                   RAMGOPAL BATRA BANSHI KORI, AGED
                                   ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE RAILWAY
                                   COLONEY, HARDA HAL MAKAM, KANKAR (U.P)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                                   (NONE)

                                 Th is appeal coming on for direction this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

Learned counsel for the State is heard on merits. This appeal under Section 378(i) of Cr.P.C has been filed against the

judgment of the acquittal dated 16.02.1998, passed in Criminal Case No.680/95 (State of M.P. Vs. Ramgopal), whereby appellant has been acquitted of offence under Section 341, 323 and 294 of IPC by learned JMFC, Harda, District Hoshangabad.

On examination of the evidence of Ashok Kumar (PW1) it is apparent that learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondent/accused from the offence under Section 341 and 294 of IPC as necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 341 and 294 of Signature Not Verified Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA Signing time: 9/28/2022 10:54:21 AM

IPC are completely missing.

So far as the charge under Section 323 of IPC is concerned, as per the evidence of Dr. R.Singhai (PW3) he examined Ashok Kumar on 14.10.1994 in Government Hospital, Harda and had found one lacerated wound on his left eyebrow, abrasion on the left forearm and contusion with abrasion on right scapula. All injuries were simple in nature and were caused within six hours of the medical examination. In cross-examination Dr. R. Singhai (PW3) has not ruled out the possibilities of sustaining of all three injuries if someone fall on earth.

Ashok Kumar (PW1) in his cross-examination has stated that he resides

in the upper portion of the quarter and accused resides on the ground floor of the quarter. He deposed that accused is wife had given him a piece of iron rod and he by that piece of iron rod had given a blow on his left eye, but he sustained only simple injury as he pulled himself back. Thereafter, when he fell down on earth Gopal beat him by means of kicks and fists causing injury on his left hand, back and cheek. Dayashankar (PW4) has deposed that he had seen accused having iron angle in the hand. He had reached on the spot after incident. Therefore, learned trial Court has not committed any error in not placing reliance on his evidence. In his cross-examination, Ashok Kumar PW1 has stated that earlier he was man handled by the accused and thereafter accused's wife had given him iron angle. Thereafter, Ramgopal forcibly laid him down on the earth and beat him by kicks and fists. The aforesaid evidence of Ashok Kumar to some extent finds corroboration from the evidence of Radheshyam (PW2) but in his cross-examination, Radheshyam has admitted that there was a dispute between Ashok and Ramgopal over the course of drain water. He further admitted that when he reached on the spot, incident was over Signature Not Verified Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA Signing time: 9/28/2022 10:54:21 AM

and Ashok was lying near stairs. Ashok had not sustained any injury. So far as reliability of Radheshyam (PW2)'s evidence is concerned, learned trial Court has not committed any error in not placing reliance on his evidence as he had reached on the spot after the incident. Rajkumar (PW6) has deposed that Ramgopal had given an iron rod blow and in that blow, Ashok has sustained injury near his left eye and had also given 3-4 kicks to Ashok, but in his cross- examination he states that Ramgopal had picked the rod from fencing installed out of his quarter. Thus, has not supported in toto the evidence of Ashok Kumar that rod was handed over to Ramgopal by his wife.

As there are material contradictions in the evidence of Rajkumar (PW6), Radheshyam (PW2) and Ashok Kumar (PW1) as to who had handed over the rod to Ramgopal for causing the injuries on the person of Ashok Kumar, the evidence of Rajkumar (PW6) and Radheshyam appears suspicious because as per the evidence of Ashok (PW1) rod was given to Ramgopal by his wife. Therefore, it is apparent that learned trial Court has not committed any error in not placing reliance on the shoky under reliable evidence of Rajkumar (PW6). Rajkumar in para 7 of his cross-examination has stated that Ramgopal had caused only one injury on the person of Ashok, whereas as per the evidence of Dr. R. Singhai three injuries were found on the person of Ashok Kumar. As such material contradictions appears in the evidence of Ashok Kumar (PW1)

Raj Kumar (PW6), Dayaram (PW4) and Radheshyam (PW2). Therefore, it cannot be assumed that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witness.

It is settled position of law that appellate Court should interfere in the conclusions recorded by the trial Court only if it does not reflect a possible

Signature Not Verified Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA Signing time: 9/28/2022 10:54:21 AM

view, that is to say a view which can reasonably be arrived at. In the case of acquittal by the trial Court, the judgment of trial court may be interfered with only where there is absolute assurance of guilt of the accused/respondent on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because another possible or a different view can be taken. In an appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible view which was in favour of acquittal has to be adopted. Reliance can be placed on Rabiya Bano Vs. Rashid Khan, reported in 2017(3) MPLJ (Cri 649).

On appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and material available on record, it cannot be said that view taken by learned trial Judge is unreasonable, perverse or manifest to illegal or grossly unjust. Therefore, having taken into consideration the aforesaid facts and the material on record, I am not inclined to interfere in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.

Consequently, this appeal under Section and 378(i) of Cr.P.C filed by the appellant being not worth entertaining is hereby dismissed.

(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE Jasleen

Signature Not Verified Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA Signing time: 9/28/2022 10:54:21 AM