Halke Bhaiya vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on admission. This appeal has been preferred u/s 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 13/1/11 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad, in Sessions Trial No. 211/2009, whereby respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 /34 and 201 /34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).

Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25/1/09, at about 9 p.m., Hakam Singh had gone to irrigate his field located at Bahravan. When he did not return in the night, he was searched for in the morning. During search, blood stains were found near the well situated at his field, and when Ramgovind looked into the Well, he saw that dead body of Hakam Singh was lying there. Balwant, accomplice of Ramgovind also peeped into the Well and identified Hakamsingh having head injury. Thereafter, Ramgovind and Balwant went to Police Station Bankhedi to lodge the report. On the basis of information given by Ramgovind, morgue no. 3/09 (Ex. P/13) was registered.

Crime No. 29/09 (Ex. P/18) was registered against respondent nos. 2 and 3 and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence and the judgment of acquittal deserves to be interfered with.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, we have gone through the record of the trial Court.

The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. To bring home the charges, prosecution examined, as many as, 13 witnesses.

Witnesses of extra judicial confession namely Harprasad (PW 4) and Mansingh (PW 5), were declared hostile. It was also held by the trial Court, in paragraph 27 of the judgment, that blood stains were not found on the seized article Khoda (Article "F") and Lahkari (Article "G"), weapons used for committing the offence. Finding given by the trial Court is based on the FSL report (Ex. P/19). Besides this, no material was produced against respondent nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the impugned judgment, being passed after proper appreciation of evidence on record, is well merited and does not call for any interference.

It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.

Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view. As such, no interference is called for with the order of acquittal in question. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.