Smt.Poonam vs State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 7584 MP

                                                         1
                          IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT GWALIOR
                                                  BEFORE
                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                               ON THE 9 th OF MAY, 2023
                                         CRIMINAL REVISION No. 631 of 2009

                         BETWEEN:-
                         SMT.POONAMW/O MANOJ SRIVAS , AGED ABOUT 27
                         YEAR S, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE & SERVICE,R/O
                         G H ATA M P U R , GHAS M AN D I, GWALIOR (MADHYA
                         PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....PETITIONER
                         (SHRI BRIJESH SHARMA- ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    MANOJ SHRIWAS S/O S/O DESHRAJ SHRIWAS ,
                               AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE,
                               R/O EKTA COLONY GUDI GUDA KA NAKA,
                               P.S.MADHAVGANJ,    LASHKAR,     GWALIOR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    SMT. OMWATI S/O W/O DESHRAJ SHRIWAS ,
                               AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE,
                               R/O EKTA COLONY GUDA GUDI KA NAKA
                               P.S.MADHAVGANJ     LASHKAR,     GWALIOR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.    SANJAY KUMAR S/O S/O DESHRAJ SHRIWAS ,
                               AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE,
                               R/O EKTA COLONY GUDA GUDI KA NAKA
                               LASHKAR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
                         (SHRI R.S. YADAV- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

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

Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 5/9/2023 6:16:09 PM

The present Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 o f CrPC filed by applicant- complainant arsing out of judgment dated 16.06.2009 passed by 14th Additional Sessions Judge Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.120 of 2009 allowing the appeal filed by the respondents No.2 to 4 herein and setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 02.04.2009 passed by Court of JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No.9368 of 2008, whereby the respondents no.2 to 4 have been acquitted of offence under Section 498-A of IPC .

I n the memo of revision, it is contended on behalf of complainant applicant that learned trial Court has committed an error in acquitting

respondents no. 2 to 4 from the charge levelled against them.

Perused the impugned judgment.

It is settled principle of law that in an appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal, the appellate Court would be slow in interfering with the judgment of the Court below. It is the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is presumed to be innocent till guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence gets strengthened after the judgment of acquittal. It is the well-settled position of law that merely because another view is possible, is not a ground to reverse the judgment of acquittal. If two views are possible, the view that is beneficial to the accused should be adopted. Further, it it settled principle of law that High Court should interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by trial Court if it arrives at a finding that the trial Court's decision is perverse or otherwise unsustainable.

O n perusal of impugned judgment and documents available on record, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in passing the judgment of

Signature Not Verified acquittal by the Appellate Court. This revision is accordingly fails and is hereby Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 5/9/2023 6:16:09 PM

dismissed.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE ojha

Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 5/9/2023 6:16:09 PM