Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Satish on 5 December, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 5 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4378 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION OON (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
( BY SHRI MUKESH SHARMA GA )
AND
1. SATISH S/O LAXMINARAYAN GURJAR, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O GRAM NAVADA THANA
UNHEL TEHSIL NAGDA UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. BARSASINGH S/O PURANISINGH PARDI, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, GRAM RAWAT P.S. BETMA,
TEH. DEPALPUR DIST. INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. RAMAKANT S/O MAHIPAL PARD, AGED ABOUT 26
YEAR S , GRAM UNAGAON, P.S. BETMA TEH.
DEPALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KUMAWAT S/O HEMRA PARDI, AGED ABOUT 28
YE A R S , GRAM RAWAT, P.S. BETMA, TEH.
DEPALPR, DIST. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. KRISHNKANT S/O JAKSANLAL PARD, AGED
ABOUT 22 YEARS, GRAM RAWAT P.S. BETMA,
TEH. DEPALPUR DIST. INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 05-12-2023
17:32:12
2
following:
ORDER
Record of the Court below has been received.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant/State.
Heard on I.A. no. 4394/2023 filed under section 378(3) of Cr.P.C for
grant of leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment dated 15/12/2022
passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone, District - Mandleshwar in
Sessions Trial no. 02/2020, whereby, respondents/accused have been acquitted
from the charges under sections399, 402 of IPC and sections 25(1-B)(A) of
Arms Act.
2/ Fact of the case in brief is that 24/11/2019, OIC of Police Chowki -
Segaon received information from the informer that some miscreants assembled
behind the warehouse of District Co-operative Samiti, Khargone - Julwaniya
Road, Segaon and planning to commit decoity at petrol pump. Acting upon the
said information, the police party reached the spot and recovered various
weapons from their possession and also recovered two motorcycles bearing
registration nos. MP-09-QS-5259 and MP-09-MU-5525 from the spot.
Accordingly, the offence under sections 99, 402 of IPC and sections 25(1-B)
(A) of Arms Act had been registered against the respondents/ accused
3/ After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the
trial Court and the trial Court, after scrutinizing the evidence available on record,
acquitted the respondents/accused from all the charges. Being aggrieved by the
impugned judgment of acquittal, the application for grant of leave to file appeal
has been filed before this court.
4/ Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Dinesh (PW-2),
ASI Krishnakant (PW-3), Jaiprakash (PW-4), ASI Santosh Choudhary (PW-5),
ASI Sheikh Shakil (PW-9) and SI Yogendra Singh Chouhan (PW10) have
supported the case of the prosecution and they have categorically stated in their
statements that the police acted upon the information given by the informer. The
police intercepted the respondents/ accused persons and found that they had
assembled for preparing conspiracy for committing decoity at petrol pump.
Some of the weapons have been recovered from their possession. There is
sufficient evidence in favour of the prosecution, but the trial Court has ignored
all the evidence available on record and acquitted the respondents/accused
persons on pity grounds, therefore, it is prayed that the application for grant of
leave to file appeal be allowed and appeal be registered against the
accused/respondent.
5/ Heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and perused the
record.
6/ Although some of the prosecution witnesses deposed against the
appellant, but they are police officers and independent witnesses Pandhari
(PW-1) and Dinesh (PW-2) have not supported the case of the prosecution.
Investigating Officer did not produce Rojnamcha ofthe concerned police station
to prove departure and arrival of police force from the police station. Place of
the incident is warehouse situated at Khargone - Julwaniya Road, Segaon, but
no independent witness of the same locality has been examined by the
prosecution before the trial Court. The prosecution has not produce a proof of
transcribed conversation script of the accused persons regarding alleged
planning for committing decoity at petrol pump. Brother of the petrol pump
Devendra Mandloi (PW-6) has been examined before the trial Court and he has
turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution and also
categorically stated that the petrol pump had been closed at 10.00 pm and he
did not get any information that some planing has been made by accused
persons to commit decoity at the petrol pump. Therefore, there is material
contradictions and omissions among the statements of the prosecution
witnesses regarding place of incident, time of incident and the manner, in which
the offence has been done, therefore, statement of police officers cannot be
relied upon in absence of corroboration of independent witness.
7/ Considering the aforesaid evidence and circumstances and the
findings given by the trial Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution/appellant has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
8/ Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sampat Babso Kale, Vs. State
of Maharashtra reported in AIR Online 2019 SC 648 held that
presumption of innocence attached to every accused person gets strengthened
on acquittal of accused by the Trial Court., High Court should not lightly
interfere with decision of trial Court.
9/ In view of the aforesaid, no illegality or perversity is found in the
impugned judgment. Accordingly, no case is made out for grant of leave to
appeal against the impugned judgment dated 15/12/2022 passed by First
Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone, District - Mandleshwar in Sessions Trial
no. 02/2020,
10/ With the aforesaid observations, I.A. no. 4394/2023 filed by the
applicant/State under section 378(3) of Cr.P.C for grant of leave to file appeal
against the impugned judgment is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
amol
