Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kishorilal on 5 February, 2024
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
&
JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 16148 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION INDWAR DISTRICT UMARIYA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI S.K. KASHYAP - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND
KISHORILAL S/O DADDU SAKET, AGED ABOUT 39
YEARS, R/O GRAM PADKHUDI PS INDWAR DISTRICT
UMARIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
Th is appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Vivek Jain
passed the following:
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.1970/2024, which is an application for condonation of
delay.
2. The appeal is stated to be time barred by 9 days. Considering the
averments made in the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied
that sufficient cause is shown for the little delay caused in filing of the appeal.
3. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay under Section
5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and the delay of 9 days in filing the appeal
stands condoned.
4. Also heard on I.A. No.30493/2023, which is an application under
Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of
acquittal dated 29.08.2023 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria
in S.T. No.25/2019. By the said judgment, the present respondent has been
acquitted of offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C.
5. Learned Government Advocate for the State submits that as per
prosecution version, there was some altercation and quarrel between the
deceased and the present respondent in relation to money received for
compensation of drought. It is alleged that the deceased and the present
respondent started fighting with fists with each other and the sons of deceased
were trying to pacify. At that movement, the co-accused Kamlesh (who is the
brother of present respondent) came on the spot and was carrying a "sabbal"
(iron road with one end sharpened) and hit the deceased in the head, which
proved to be fatal. The co-accused Kamlesh has been convicted under Section
302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced with life imprisonment, while the present
respondent has been acquitted. The trial Court has given justification for
acquittal of the present respondent in para 40 of the judgment under challenge.
The trial Court has held that the quarrel of the deceased with the present
respondent was going on with fists and blows and at that time the co-accused
Kamlesh was not present on the spot. The trial Court has also adverted to the
fact that there is nothing on record to show that the present respondent has in
any manner called the co-accused on the spot or exhorted the co-accused to hit
or assault the deceased. The trial Court has further held that the actual blow was
given by co-accused Kamlesh and there is nothing on record to show meeting
of mind or any premeditation, which would implicate the present respondent in
the act committed by co-accused Kamlesh with the aid of Section 34 of the
I.P.C.
6. Learned Government Advocate while assailing the said finding has
referred to deposition of Munni Bai (PW/1), who has deposed that the present
respondent was armed with a stick (lathi) and was hitting the deceased with the
s aid lathi. It is argued by referring to deposition of Dr. Shiv Om Shukla
(PW/21) that there are other injuries also on the body of the deceased and since
the present respondent was armed with a lathi, the other injuries on the body of
the deceased have been caused by the present respondent. Thus, the deceased
was assaulted by the present respondent as well as by the co-accused Kamlesh
and thus, the acquittal of present respondent deserves to be set aside.
7. Upon perusal of the evidence brought on record, it is seen that Munni
Bai (PW/1) has stated that the present respondent was armed with a lathi. She
is sister of deceased. The sons of deceased are Nilesh (PW/2) and Atul (PW/3)
and as per their version Munni Bai (PW/1) came on the spot after the deceased
had been hit. In para 1 of deposition of Nilesh (PW/2), it is seen that this
witness has stated that a quarrel was going on between the present respondent
and deceased with fists and blow and suddenly, co-accused Kamlesh came and
hit the deceased in the head with sabbal. The same version is to be seen in the
deposition of Atul (PW/3), who is also son the of the deceased.
8. Learned Government Advocate has referred to other injuries on the
body of the deceased, which as per contention of learned Government
Advocate of the State can be attributed to the present respondent having been
caused by a lathi. Learned Government Advocate for the State has also
referred to injuries Nos.1, 2 and 3 on the body of deceased as mentioned in
para 2 of deposition of PW/21. It has been argued that these injuries Nos.1, 2
and 3 have been caused by the present respondent by means of lathi.
9. Upon going through the deposition of PW/21 as well as the
postmortem report (Exhibit P/23), it is seen that the injuries Nos.1, 2 and 3 are
three injuries, which are abrasive injuries one on the skull and the other two on
left elbow and left ankle. These were abrasive injuries and were pink in colour.
The incident had occurred on 11.11.2018 and the deceased expired on
27.11.2018. He was examined by PW/19 after he was brought to hospital upon
sustaining the injuries at Govt. CHC, Barhi. His medical examination report is
Exhibit P/16. As per Exhibit P/16, which is duly proved by Dr. Ram Mani Patel
(PW/19), the deceased was having a single injury in the skull, which was a
lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm and blood was oozing out of the same.
This medico-legal examination does not mention any other injuries on the body
of the deceased. Thereafter, he was taken to Metro Hospital, Jabalpur for better
treatment. Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain (PW-12) has examined the deceased upon
arrival in Metro Hospital on 13.11.2018 itself. He also does not speak about any
other injury apart from the lacerated injury on head.
10. Even otherwise, even if the version of the prosecution is accepted,
that the present respondent was armed with lathi and he also assaulted the
deceased, then also, lathi blow would not cause abrasive injuries and for this
reason also, injurious Nos.1, 2 and 3 cannot be attributed to the present
respondent.
11. In view of the above re-appreciation of evidence, the logic and
justification adopted by the trial Court in para 40 of the judgment while
acquitting the present respondent does not appear to be perverse or illegal so as
to warrant grant of leave to appeal. After considering the entire evidence and the
finding given by the trial Court in the impugned judgment from angle suggested
by the learned Government Advocate for the State, we are of the considered
opinion that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is impeccable.
12. Resultantly, no ground is available to interfere in the impugned
judgment passed by the trial Court in the matter of acquittal of present
respondent. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant leave to prefer appeal
against the impugned judgment of acquittal. Consequently, I.A. No.30493/2023
stands dismissed. Consequently, the present appeal also stands dismissed.
(SUJOY PAUL) (VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE JUDGE
rj
