Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal 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 10/2/12 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Waidhan, Singrouli in Sessions Trial No. 401/2010, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 302 /34, 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the Code").

Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3/2/10, First Information Report (Ex. P/1) at Police Station Sarai, District Singrouli, was lodged by complainant Yantrilal to the effect that on 2/2/10 at about 7.30 p.m., his brother Chhotelal had gone to irrigate the fields. Next day morning, Ramadhar Jaiswal informed that a dead body was lying at Mudhi Patera. He reached the spot and saw that his brother was lying dead and injuries of sharp edged weapon had been inflicted on his neck and back by unknown persons. Crime No. 33/10 was registered and after completion of 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 whole case of prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. The learned trial Court has found that the chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete.

On perusal of the evidence and material available on record, we fully agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court 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.