The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Vasudev
2023 Latest Caselaw 1861 MP

                                                                   1
                                   IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                         AT INDORE
                                                           BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                     ON THE 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2963 of 2019

                                  BETWEEN:-
                                  THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH             THROUGH P.S.
                                  SARDARPUR,TEHSIL SARDARPUR,             DISTT. DHAR
                                  (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                .....APPELLANT
                                  (BY SHRI GOVIND PUROHIT-GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                                  AND
                                  1.    VASUDEV S/O KISHAN DABAR, AGED ABOUT 60
                                        Y E A R S , OCCUPATION:   AGRICULTURIST
                                        KHAMLIYA, TEHSIL SARDARPUR DISTRICT
                                        DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                  2.    MADANLAL S/O VASUDEV DABAR, AGED ABOUT
                                        23   YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O -
                                        KHAMLIYA, TEHSIL - SARDARPUR DISTRICT
                                        DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
                                  (BY MS. NASREEN REHMAN-ADVOCATE)

                                        Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                                  following:
                                                                    ORDER

This is an appeal under section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 15.3.2018 passed by JMFC, Sardarpur, district Dhar in criminal case No 542/2014 whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the offence under sections 294, 323/34 and 506(II) of PC.

2 According to the prosecution case, on 15.5.2014 at about 1.00 a.m in

Signature Not Verified the night, near Govt. Talab ground, Khamlia, victim Onkarlal was abused by the Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 04-Feb-23 2:46:49 PM

accused persons In furtherance of common intention, accused Vasudeo hit the victim Onkarlal from backside by axe and also threatened him to kill. On the basis of complaint of Onkarlal, the aforesaid offences were registered. In the court statement of Onkarlal (PW-1), he deposed that when he reached at the spot, accused Vasudeo abused him and during altercation, accused Madanlal came from the backside and caught hold him and Vasudeo hit him with the backside of axe. On his information, Ex.P/1 was recorded. The allegation that accused Madanlal had caught hold him from the backside was not mentioned in the FIR. He further deposed that hearing his shouting, Amrit (PW-6) reached on the spot. However, Amrit has not supported the prosecution case. He further

stated that Hemsingh and Jadusingh are eye witness of the incident. They are two independent witnesses. Jadusingh (PW-2) has stated that no incident had taken place. He stated that he had not seen the accused Vasudeo hitting Onkarlal with axe. The same fact was informed to him by tractor driver. According to Onkarlal (PW-1), the tractor-driver was Amrit (PW-6). Amrit has also denied the incident. The other independent witness, Hemsingh (PW-3) has also stated that no incident had taken place. He also stated that accused Vasudeo had not hit Onkarlal with the help of lathi. Thus, both the eye witnesses, Jadusingh (PW-2) and Hemsingh (PW-3) have not supported the prosecution case. They deposed that they have not seen the incident but they had reached on the spot. They saw injury on the head of Onkarlal and Onkarlal had informed them that accused Madanlal had caught hold him and Vasudeo had hit him with the axe The medical examination report of Onkarlal is Ex.P/6. In the sad report, one injury of 3x1 cm. lacerated wound was found on the left side of the head. Dr Jain (PW-5) was examined to prove the medical report. He Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 04-Feb-23 2:46:49 PM

admitted that the injury sustained by the victim could have been caused on account of fall. The trial court after appreciating the evidence of Onkarlal(PW-

1) and independent witnesses, Jadusingh (PW-2), Hemsingh (PW-3) and Dr. Jain (PW-5) held that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any doubt.

3. It is to note here that in an appeal, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Vs. K. Narsimhachary reported in (2005) 8 SCC 364 said that as per well settled principle, if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the findings of acquittal recorded by the lower Court; it can only be interpreted where the material on record leads to sole inescapable conclusion of the guilt of accused. In the case of T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC 401 , the Apex Court has reiterated the same principle relying upon said judgment and by interfering in appeal the judgment of the High Court was set aside restoring the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused In the case of K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan, (008) 1 SCC 258, the Apex Court has observed that in case two views are possible, the appellate Court shall not reverse the judgment of acquittal only because the another view may be possibly taken.

4. The Apex Court has held in the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. State of M.P., (2016) 10 SCC 220 that in the cases of acquittal by the court of law, the

court has to be very cautious in interfering in an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The relevant paras 11 and 12 of the said judgment of Mahavir Singh (supra) quoted as under:-

œ

"11. We have heard the learned counsel on either side Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 04-Feb-23 2:46:49 PM

at length and perused the material available on record. Now it is imperative to look into the scope of interference by the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal and whether the High Court was justified in convicting the accused under Section 302, IPC by reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

12.In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a competent Court after a full-fledged trial, and once the Trial Court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, then the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on the appellate Court while dealing with the appeal. No doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the power of the appellate Court to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon which the order of acquittal is passed. But the court has to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate Court while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for such a conclusion."

5. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court and the law laid down by the Apex Court, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order and there are no compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE MK

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 04-Feb-23 2:46:49 PM