The State Of M.P. vs Rajesh Kumar And Anr.
2023 Latest Caselaw 975 MP

                                                          1
                          IN      THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
                                            ON THE 17 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 323 of 2001

                         BETWEEN:-
                         THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....APPELLANT
                         (BY SHRI S. K. YADAV-DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    RAJESH KUMAR (DEAD), SON OF BADRI PRASAD
                               PANDEY, AGED 32 YEARS R/O VILLAGE
                               MOUHARIYA POLICE STATION AMARPATAN
                               DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    MATHURA PRASAD S/O BADRI PRASAD PANDAY,
                               AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS        R/O VILLAGE
                               MOUHARIYA POLICE STATION AMARPATAN
                               DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH),

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                         (NONE)

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

                         following:
                                                        JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.10.1999 passed in Criminal Case No.307/94 (State of M.P. vs. Rajesh Kumar and another) by Shri Umesh Kumar Shrivastava JMFC, Amarpatan District Satna whereby respondents have been acquitted of offence under Sections 325 and 325 r/w 34 of IPC.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BIJU BABY Signing time:

1/20/2023 7:34:50 PM

2. It is admitted that respondent No.1 Rajesh Kumar has expired due to which this appeal stands abated against him.

3. As per the prosecution story, on 03.12.1993 at 06:45 p.m. Bhagwan Prasad (PW-2) lodged an FIR stating that today at around 06:30 p.m. he was standing at Satna Tiraha. In the meantime Mathura Prasad Pandey and his younger brother came and asked as to why he had installed electric pole in their field. At this, he told that he had taken consent from their mother, Mathura Prasad gave a fist blow on his nose while his younger brother lifted him and forcibly laid on the earth. He sustained injury in his right hand. Matter was pacified by Prabhudesh Kumar Chaturvedi, Amar Pandey and Raj Kumar

Tiwari. FIR was registered. After investigation, charge sheet was filed.

4. Learned trial Court framed the charges against the accused persons for commission of offence under Section 325 and 325/34 of IPC. They abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Gomti Prasad (PW-

1), Bhagwan Prasad (PW-2), Rajjan Tripathi (PW-3), Prabhudesh Kumar Chaturvedi (PW-4), Phoolchand Mishra (PW-5), Dr. R. K. Jain (PW-6), Lallu Lal Soni (PW-7) and Sanat Kumar Jain (PW-8).

6 . Learned trial Court after recording of evidence of both the parties acquitted the accused persons hence, this appeal.

7. It is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal. It is well-settled principle of law that the High Court should not interfere in the well-reasoned acquittal order of the trial Court which has been arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. The High Court should give due regard to the findings and the conclusions reached by the trial Court unless strong and compelling reasons exist in the evidence itself which can dislodge the findings Signature Not Verified Signed by: BIJU BABY Signing time:

1/20/2023 7:34:50 PM

itself. It is also settled that while hearing an appeal against an acquittal order of the trial Court the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is founded, yet the presumption of innocence of the accused being further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial Court, the findings of that Court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons. In such a case the Appellate Court is further burdened with the task of reaffirming the innocence of the accused and in case no compelling reasons and substantial grounds are available for the High Court to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court High Court should refrain from interfering in the order of acquittal only because two view are possible and the view taken by the trial Court is also reasonably possible it should not disturb the order of acquittal just because it feels that another view of the matter is also possible. Reliance can be placed on Bannareddy vs. State of Karnataka, 2019(1) MPLJ (Cri)(SC) 1 0 4 a n d Bhaskarrao vs. State of Maharashtra, 2019(1) MPLJ (Cri)(SC)

8. I have heard learned Government Advocate and perused the impugned judgment and trial Court record.

9. Bhagwan Prasad (PW-2) has deposed that Mathura had slapped in his cheek and had also given a blow of iron rod in his hand due to which he had

sustained fracture in the hand. Rajesh was with Mathura and he had sit over him. He had sustained injury in his hand only. He had not sustained any injury on his nose and cheek. The evidence of Bhagwan Prasad (PW-2) was disbelieved by learned trial Court as it was against the prosecution story because as per the prosecution story, Mathura had given fist blow on his nose

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BIJU BABY Signing time:

1/20/2023 7:34:50 PM

whereas in his evidence before the trial Court he refused from the same and stated that he was slapped by Mathura. As per the prosecution story, he had sustained injury in his hand as he was forcibly laid on the earth by Rajesh Pandey whereas in his Court evidence he stated that he had sustained fracture as rod blow was given by Mathura Pandey. Thus, evidence of Bhagwan Prasad (PW-2) is against prosecution story. In his cross-examination, he has denied his police statement that he had sustained injury in his hand as he was forcibly laid on earth. On the contrary, he stated that he had sustained injury due to iron rod blow given by Mathura. Learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence of Bhagwan Prasad (PW-2) and has rightly disbelieved it as same is against the prosecution story. Thus, I am of the view that learned trial Court has not committed any error in disbelieving his evidence.

10. Rajjan Tripathi (PW-3) has also supported the evidence of Bhagwan Prasad (PW-2). He has deposed that Mathura had caused injury to Bhagwan Prasad by means of rod. He has denied from the prosecution story that Bhagwan Prasad was forcibly laid on the earth by Rajesh. His evidence is also against the very foundation of prosecution story. He is relative of Bhagwan Das. Thus, it is apparent that learned trial Court has not committed any error in disbelieving his evidence.

11. Prabhudesh Kumar Chaturvedi (PW-4) deposed that he knew only Rajesh and not the other person. Bhagwan Prasad was laid on the earth by Rajesh and he had sustained injury in his hand. This evidence of Prabhudesh Kumar Chaturvedi (PW-4) is not only against the very foundation of prosecution story but also against the evidence of Bhagwan Prasad (PW-1) who has deposed that he had sustained injury in his hand due to iron rod blow given by Mathura Prasad. Thus, learned trial Court has not committed any error Signature Not Verified Signed by: BIJU BABY Signing time:

1/20/2023 7:34:50 PM

in disbelieving the evidence of Prabhudesh Kumar Chaturvedi (PW-4).

12. As per Dr. R. K. Jain (PW-6) he had found swelling on the right hand elbow and nose of Bhagwan Prasad. In evidence, Bhagwan Prasad (PW-

2) has clearly denied from sustaining any injury on the nose. In X-ray, dislocation was found on the right elbow of Bhagwan Prasad. His evidence is also against the medical evidence as he has denied to have sustain any injury on the nose whereas doctor had found one injury on his nose. Thus, the evidence of Bhagwan Prasad (PW-2) is also not in confirmity with the medical evidence.

13. On examination of the evidence of witnesses recorded by the learned trial Court and the findings recorded in impugned judgment, it is apparent that learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence of all witnesses and has not committed any error in disbelieving their evidence. Thus, learned trial Court has not committed any error in recording the findings of acquittal as prosecution has not been successful to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.

14. Thus, no fault is visible in the findings and judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Thus, no case is made out to interfere in the well-reasoned impugned judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court.

1 5 . Hence, this appeal by State of M.P. being devoid of merits is dismissed.

16. Trial Court record along with a copy of judgment be sent down to Court concerned through Sessions Judge, Satna.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BIJU BABY Signing time:

1/20/2023 7:34:50 PM

(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE b

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BIJU BABY Signing time:

1/20/2023 7:34:50 PM