Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkrishna Sharma vs Shrikishan on 21 April, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18179
1 MCRC-14025-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 21st OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14025 of 2016
RAMKRISHNA SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRIKISHAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shri Sandeep Deb - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
This case was heard and reserved for orders on 10.03.2025.
2. The application under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. has been
filed by the applicant/complainant seeking leave to appeal against the
impugned judgment of acquittal dated 04.06.2016 which has been
passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in S.T.
No.262/2012, whereby the respondents/accused persons were acquitted
of the charges levelled against them for offences under Sections 294,
506 Part II of I.P.C and convicting them under Section 147, 323 R/w
Section 149 (2 counts), 325 R/w Section 149 of IPC instead of
convicting them under Section 329 R/w Section 149 of IPC. Therefore,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18179
2 MCRC-14025-2016
applicants are seeking conviction of accused persons under Section 329,
294 and 506 part II of IPC.
3. There was oral complaint by Ramkrishna that on 13.09.2007
at about 07:30 am on public place near Duraha Jod, the complainants -
Ramkrishna Sharma, Mahendra Sharma and Omprakash were hurled
obscene abuses by accused persons and of furtherance in common
intention for extorting the money they assaulted the complaints and
caused them serious injuries.
4. As per Para 2 of the impugned judgment the trial Court
recorded that incident occurred on account of dispute of taking
possession of plot. On the same incident cases have been registered by
both parties against each other. On complaint by injured person for the
same incident gave rise to FIR and Registration of ST No.145/2014,
which was pending on the date of judgement.
5. Learned trial Judge after recording of evidence and after
hearing learned both the parties have in the case under appeal i.e. ST
No.262/2012 convicted the accused for offence under Section 147, 323
R/w Section 149 (2 counts) and instead of Section 329 R/w 149 IPC
convicted in Section 325 R/w Section 149 of IPC and has sentenced the
each accused under 147 IPC with RI 6 -6 month and under Section 323
R/w 149 (2) of IPC on each accused sentenced for 6-6 years RI with the
fine of Rs.1000 to1000 and under Section 325 149 of IPC and RI for 2
years and fine of 4000- 4000 and in default of fine to undergo default
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18179
3 MCRC-14025-2016
sentence as imposed and acquitted under Section 294, 506 of I.P.C..
6. On perusal of the record and statement of the witness namely
PW-1 (Amardas), PW-2 (Mushtakh Khan), PW-3 (Ashok Rathor), PW-4
(Govind Prasad Sharma) PW-5 (Ramkrishna Sharma) PW-6 (R.S.
Parmar) PW-7 (Mahendra Sharma) PW-8 (Omprakash Sharma) PW-9
(Ramkishan Verma) PW-10 (Dr. Rashmi Patel), and considering the
documents filed as FIR (Ex.P/1), Medical report (Ex.P/3 to P/5), X-ray
report (Ex.P/6 to P/8) this court is of the view that in the fact and
circumstances of the case, learned Trial Court has properly appreciated
the prosecution the case and taken all facts into consideration. Regarding
the incident case were registered by both parties, therefore, no ground is
made for convicting the accused persons in Section 294, 506 part II of
IPC or in Section 329 of IPC.
7. Even otherwise in case of Chamanlal Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh, SCC online SC 988, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 12 has
held thus:-
"12. This Court time and again has laid down the guidelines for
the High Court to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the trial court. The appellate court should not ordinarily set
aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible,
though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one.
While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to
consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18179
4 MCRC-14025-2016
whether the views of the trial court were perverse or otherwise
unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in
arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take into
consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration
the evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing
of burden of proof may also be a subjectmatter of scrutiny by the
appellate court. (Vide Balak Ram v. State of U.P (1975) 3 SCC 219,
Shambhoo Missir v. State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17, Shailendra Pratap
v. State of U.P (2003) 1 SCC 761, Narendra Singh v. State of M.P
(2004) 10 SCC 699, Budh Singh v. State of U.P (2006) 9 SCC 731, State
of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh (2007) 13 SCC 102, S. Rama Krishna v. S.
Rami Reddy (2008) 5 SCC 535, Arulvelu v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206,
Perla Somasekhara Reddy v. State of A.P (2009) 16 SCC 98 and Ram
Singh v. State of H.P (2010) 2 SCC 445).
8. Therefore, even in cases of enhancement of punishment court
has to be very vigilant and after considering the ground raised by the
petitioner/applicant for enhancement of punishment this court is of the
view that no case is made out to interfere.
9. Accordingly, application leave to appeal and for enhancement
and convicting the accused persons as per prayer in appeal is having no
merit.
10. In the light of discussion discussed above, the reasons
assigned in the impugned judgment and considering the case in its
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18179
5 MCRC-14025-2016
entirety, we are of the opinion that no case is made out to interfere in the
impugned judgment. Hence, in view of facts and legal matrix discussed
above, we dismiss the petition for grant of leave to prefer appeal against
the impugned judgment.
11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
12. Let a copy of this order alongwith record be sent to the trial
Court.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
NRJ
