Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Sharma vs Vasudev @ Vasu on 4 March, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 652 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
SANJAY SHARMA S/O RAJARAM SHARMA, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TYRE SHOP VILLAGE
DHANOD TEHSIL DHARAMPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI YASH PAL RATHORE, LEARNED COUNSEL)
AND
1. VASUDEV @ VASU S/O GENDALAL MATTHA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LABOURER VILLAGE DUDHI TEHSIL
DHARAMPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHANTILAL @ MIRANDA S/O MANGILAL
MATTHA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LABOUR VILL. DUDHI TEH. DHARAMPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SONU S/O SATISHCHANDRA DHOBI, AGED ABOUT
32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILL. DUDHI,
TEH. DHARAMPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUNIL S/O GENDALAL MATTHA, AGED ABOUT 34
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILL. DUDHI,
TEH. DHARAMPURI ,DISTT. DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. P.S . DHARAMPURI,DISTT. DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANOPAM CHOUHAN, LEARNED COUNSEL)
T h is revision coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 05-03-2024
17:26:29
2
ORDER
The present revision is filed under Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. being
aggrieved by the order dated 16.04.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Dharampuri, Dist. Dhar in Criminal Appeal No.2/15 reversing the judgment
dated 19.11.2014 passed by JMFC, Dharampuri, Dist. Dhar in Criminal Case
No.1090/2010 acquitting the respondents No.1-3 and reducing the sentence of
respondent No.4.
2. Counsel for the applicant submits that the Magistrate has convicted all
the accused persons, however, the appellate Court has acquitted the
respondents No.1-3 and convicted the appellant No.4 under Section 325 of
IPC, but reduced his jail sentence from 2 years to six months RI and awarded
Rs.700/- each fine amount. Counsel for the applicant argued that the appellate
Court erred while acquitting the accused persons No.1-3 and also reducing the
jail sentence of the respondent No.4.
4. Counsel for the respondents submits that the appellate Court has
recorded the finding after evaluation of the facts and evidence of the case. No
interference is called for against the order of acquittal and the jail sentence
awarded to the respondent No.4.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration that the appellate Court has considered the statement of the
victim/complainant Sanjay, who deposed that all the accused persons have
beaten him with fists and kicks. However, the eyewitness Prakash did not
support the statement of the complainant and stated that only accused appellant
had beaten by fists and kicks and the other accused persons were only standing
at the spot. This Court has also taken into consideration the statement of PW-3
Rajaram and held that the non-applicants No.1-3 are entitled for acquittal
because merely their presence have been shown at the spot and no overt act is
alleged. The Court has also reduced the jail sentence of the respondent No.4.
The respondent No.4 has also filed a revision CRR No.461/2015 against this
order of conviction by the appellate Court. The said revision has been allowed
partly and fine amount has been enhanced from Rs.700/- to Rs.5000/- and the
said fine amount has been directed to be deposited within two months from
today. Thus, the revision filed by respondent No.4 has been partly allowed.
This Court does not find any error in the order of acquittal of respondents
No.1-3 and the order of sentence reduced in respect of respondent No.4.
6. Further, the scope of interference against an order of acquittal is very
limited. 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, reported in (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 reported in (2008) 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.
7. The Apex Court has held in the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. State of
M.P. reported in (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.
8. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law and appreciation of facts
and evidence, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned
judgment. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of any merit and
substance is hereby dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
soumya
