Jagdish Prasad Pandey vs Suresh Kumar Dwivedi

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on I.A. No. 2658/12, which is an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay. As per office note, the appeal is barred by 311 days.

Considering the reasons assigned therein, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is, hereby, condoned.

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 25/1/11 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Singrouli in Sessions Trial No. 23/2010 (Old S.T. No. 187/2006), whereby respondent nos. 1 & 2 have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 302 /34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").

Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12/10/06, Ramkishore Kushwaha informed at Police Station Bargawan that foul smell was emanating from the locked house of Ganga Prasad Pandey, resident of Village Chingitola. Station House Officer, Bargawan, reached the spot and after getting the lock opened, found that Ganga prasad was lying dead on his cot. Morgue No. 0/06 and Dehati Nalishi were registered. During investigation, it surfaced that Ganga prasad was an un-married person, who used to make his living by practicing Jhaadphoonk (witchcraft) and providing herbs. 8-9 years prior to the date of incident, he had got a house made for his nephew Ramlakhan behind his house, who used to serve him. However, since last 3-4 years, Krishnavati, wife of Ramlakhan had stopped serving Ganga prasad as she suspected him to be the reason for Ramlakhan''s paralysis. From the last one year, Ganga Prasad was interested in dispossessing Ramlakhan from the land given by him and making a Temple thereon and 1-2 days prior to the incident, there had been a quarrel between Ramlakhan and Krishnavati, due to which Krishnavati along with his relative Suresh Kumar Dwivedi, conspired to kill Ganga prasad, in pursuance whereof she strangulated Ganga Prasad to death in his house.

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.

Ku. Archana Pandey (PW1), child witness, deposed in para 2 of her evidence that when police had reached the spot and were trying to unlock the door, respondent no. 2 Krishnavati had dropped the keys stealthily and told the police not to break the lock as the key was lying there. That apart, there is no evidence against the respondent no. 2. So far the evidence of this witness is concerned, the same is not trustworthy as neither this fact was disclosed to the persons of locality nor before the police by her, and, for the first time, she had stated it in the Court. On this very ground, the trial Court acquitted the respondents.

We fully agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court that are based on the proper appreciation of evidence on record.

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.