Chunnu Prajapati vs Raju @ Dashrath
2024 Latest Caselaw 3313 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Chunnu Prajapati vs Raju @ Dashrath on 5 February, 2024

Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal

Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal

                                                           1
                           IN      THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
                                             ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                          CRIMINAL REVISION No. 526 of 2006

                          BETWEEN:-
                          CHUNNU PRAJAPATI S/O BALLU PRAJAPATI, AGED
                          ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O USRAPURWA VILLAGE
                          MAJHGAWAN POLICE STATION DHARMPUR TEHSIL
                          AJAYGARH, PANNA DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....APPLICANT
                          (NONE)

                          AND
                          1.    RAJU @ DASHRATH S/O CHHITARI @ BHAU
                                LODH, OCCUPATON LABOUR, R/O USRANPURVA
                                VILLAGE  MAJHGAWAN     POLICE  STATION
                                DHARAMPUR, TEHSIL AJAYGARH, DISTRICT
                                PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                POLICE   STATION   DHARAMPUR     TEHSIL
                                AJAYGARH, PANNA DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                          (NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
                          (SHRI SOURABH SHUKLA - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT
                          NO.2/STATE)

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

This petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the appeal judgment dated 16.02.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Electricity Act, 2003, Panna (MP)

in Special Case No.8/2004 (State of M.P. Vs. Raju @ Dashrath ) whereby respondent no.1 Raju @ Dashrath has been acquitted of the offences under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

2. In the case in hand, accused (respondent No.1 herein) was charge- sheeted for commission of offences under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 that he had laid electric GI wires without due care and on account of his negligence, Phoolchand died. It was also alleged that he committed theft of electricity worth Rs.1873/-.

3. On perusal of the material on record, it is apparent that in their evidence before the trial Court, Dayaram (P.W.-2), Munni Lal (P.W.-3), Bablu

(P.W.-7), Gyadeen (P.W.-8), Kusum @ Kusuma (P.W.-9) and Chhunnu (P.W.-

10) have stated that wires were laid by the accused Raju @ Dasrath (respondent herein) for the purpose of electricity theft. It is apparent that these persons are interested witnesses and their evidence is self-contradictory. They are not the eye-witnesses of the incident but they tried to depose as eye-witnesses.

4. In such circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved their evidence. Findings of trial Court recording acquittal of respondent Raju @ Dasrath are neither arbitrary nor against the evidence of witnesses & material available on record. Admittedly, parties have enmity with each-other. Therefore, learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. It is settled position of law that High Court should not interfere in the judgment of acquittal, unless the evidence on record had been totally over-looked and conclusion are drawn against the evidence on record. As learned trial Court has duly appreciated the evidence & material on record. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the well recorded findings of the trial Court & order of acquittal of the accused.

5. Consequently, this revision being shorn of merit is dismissed.

(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE @shish