Laxman vs State of M.P.

D.K. Paliwal, J.—Heard on admission.

This criminal revision has been preferred u/s 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the acquittal of respondents No. 2, 4 & 5 for the charges under Sections 148, 324/149, 323/149 and respondent No. 3 for the charges under Sections 148, 324, 323/149 of IPC by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, in Sessions Trial No. 271/96 on 27.2.2007.

The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 16.6.1994 the complainant alongwith his brother Bharat Singh took their oxes to the well for getting them drunk water. Laxminarayan armed with Lathi, Ramnarayan Farsa, Hippi sword and Chokhesingh and Kaptan Singh armed with Lathi came there and gave beating to the complainant and his brother causing injuries. On the report, Crime No. 41/94 under Sections 324, 323, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC has been registered. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and respondents No. 2 to 5 were charged. They denied the charges and claimed trial. After recording the evidence, the learned trial Court recorded a finding that Crime No. 40/94 under Sections 307, 324, 326, 147, 148, 149 and 302 of IPC has been registered against the complainant party and respondent-Kapan has lodged the report first and thereafter complainant Laxman has lodged the report just to save them and the complainant party was aggressor. Thus, respondents No. 2 to 5 have been acquitted. Being aggrieved, this revision petition has been preferred.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and wrongly disbelieved the statements of injured Laxman (PW-2) and Bharat (PW-3). The learned trial Court has also overlooked the fact that statements of Laxman (PW-2) and Bharat (PW-3) are fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Hence, the acquittal recorded by learned trial Court is illegal.

Perused the evidence.

It is not disputed that on the report of respondent-Kaptan Singh, Crime No. 40/94 under Sections 307, 324, 326, 147, 148, 149 and 302 of IPC has been registered in which Chokhe Singh has been killed. It is also not disputed that complainant (petitioner) has lodged the report after Crime No. 40/94 was registered against him and others.

Laxman Singh (PW-2) has stated that on 16.6.94 he and his brother took their oxes to the well of Chokheram for getting them drunk water. Suddenly foot of one of the ox landed in the drain which got broken. On it, the accused persons started beating them. Ramnarayan gave Farsa blow on the head of his brother Bharat. He lodged the report. Bharat Singh (PW-3) has also stated that he and his brother took their oxes to the well of Chokheram for getting them drunk water. The accused persons came and gave beating.

Chhotesingh (PW-5), Rajendrasingh (PW-7) and Murarilal (PW-8) have not supported the prosecution case. Dr. C.P. Banoda (PW-1) has found two lacerated wounds, three abrasions and one swelling over the person of Laxman Singh and two lacerated wounds over head and ring finger of Bharat. Laxman Singh (PW-2) in para 3 has admitted that he is studied upto M.A. and trial in regard to murder of Chokheram is pending against him alongwith Dhurvsingh, Gabbarsingh, Bharatsingh, Harisingh and Murari, however, he has no knowledge that Chokheram has been murdered on 16.4.1994. In para 9, this witness has denied that his brother Murari and Harisingh went to take illegal electricity connection from the D.P. which is installed near the well of Chokheram and when Chokheram objected, he, Gabbar, Dhurv, Bharat, Murari and Hari gave beating to Chokheram who died. He also denied that Kaptansingh and Ramnarayan were also beaten. Bharat (PW-3) has also denied the aforesaid suggestions in his cross-examination.

D.R. Roniya (PW-9) is the investigating officer. He has admitted in cross-examination that he also investigated the cross-case bearing Crime No. 40/94 and he sent respondents Laxminarayan, Ramnarayan, Kaptansingh and Chokheram for medical examination because they were injured. He further admitted that Chokheram later on died.

Considering that testimony of Bharat (PW-3) and Laxman (PW-2) is not corroborated by Chhotesingh (PW-5), Rajendrasingh (PW-7) and Murarilal (PW-8), they (Bharat and Laxman) have not explained the injuries sustained by the respondents and deceased Chokheram and the incident took place near the well of deceased Chokheram father of respondent Laxminarayan, in my opinion, the learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and material on record. The finding of acquittal is based on proper appreciation of the evidence and material. Even if two views are possible, there is no scope for taking a contrary view from the view taken by the learned trial Court. This revision petition is bereft of any merits. Hence, it is hereby dismissed.