Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 13027 MP
Judgement Date : 10 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 10th OF AUGUST, 2023
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO.11677 OF 2022
BETWEEN:-
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION BHONTI, DISTRICT SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH).
........APPLICANT
(BY SHRI LOKENDRA SHRIVASTAVA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
AND
1. BABITABAI, W/O LATE DHARAMDAS
LODHI, AGE- 34 YEARS,
2. PURSHOTTAM @ HALKE @ BHURA, S/O
SUNDERLAL LODHI, AGE- 28 YEARS,
3. MADAN SINGH, AGE - 33 YEARS,
ALL R/O GRAM LABHEDA, POLICE
STATION PICHHORE, DISTRICT
SHIVPURI, MADHYA PRADESH.
........RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This application coming on for admission this day, the Court
passed the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This application seeking leave to appeal has been filed by the applicant/State under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of
acquittal dated 21/10/2021 pronounced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore, District Shivpuri (MP) in Sessions Trial No.39/2017, whereby respondents have been acquitted from the charges framed under Sections 120-B, 201, 302, 34 of IPC
2. Learned counsel for the applicant/State submits that prosecution case is based on last seen evidence and both the witnesses, namely, Surajbhan (PW-2) and Kalyan Singh (PW-5), who had last seen the deceased alive with respondents, have supported the prosecution case, even then learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents from all the charges. The findings rendered by the learned Trial Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in right perspective and discredited the evidence of material witnesses, leading to acquittal of respondents/accused.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/State and perused the record of the Trial Court.
4. Upon perusal of the record, it is apparent that prosecution case is based on the statements of deceased's brother Surajbhan (PW-2) and relative Kalyan Singh (PW-5), who had last seen the deceased Dharamdas alive together with respondents. Admittedly, deceased Dharamdas went missing since 12/7/2017 and his father complainant Suwalal (PW-1), brother Surajbhan (PW-2) as well as other family members started his search since 13/7/2017. On 15/7/2017 first time complainant Suwalal in his written complaint, Ex.P/1, disclosed the fact that his son Surajbhan (PW-2) had last seen his brother deceased Dharamdas alive together with respondents going on motorcycle on 12/7/2017. Kalyan Singh (PW-5) in his statement recorded during investigation on 15/7/2017 disclosed the fact that he had last seen the
deceased alive together with the respondents sitting near Salai river. Both the above witnesses nowhere explained the reason for not disclosing the aforesaid fact prior to 15/7/2017. Admittedly, they are the close relatives of the deceased. Surajbhan (PW-2) admitted in his cross- examination that he was having animosity with the respondents. In these circumstances, only on the basis of aforesaid witnesses complicity of the respondents in the crime cannot be inferred beyond reasonable doubt. In the light of the findings of the Trial Court which are based on critical evaluation of the evidence on record, conclusion of acquittal drawn in favour of the respondents is found to be impregnable, as neither there is any illegality nor irregularity in the findings so recorded.
5. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2023.08.11 14:53:13 +05'30'
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!