Prabha Bai Lodhi vs Shiv Charan

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 8/10/10 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, District Sagar, in Sessions Trial No. 132/2010, whereby respondent No. 2 Ramsingh has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 147, 302, 302/149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"), while the respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 6 have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 148, 302, 302/149 and 323/149 of the IPC and Section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that after purchasing a new Tractor, Santosh Singh and Phool Singh were returning from Bina to Village Mudhiya on a Motorcycle, followed by their associates Munshi Singh and Govind Lodhi on another Motorcycle, who at Village Koha stopped at a Stall to have tea. At that juncture, Tularam, Shivcharan and Shaligram armed with Swords came on a Motorcycle, while Bihari, Asharam and Ramsingh, respectively armed with Swords and Katta (country made pistol) came on another Motorcycle and in furtherance of their common object to kill Munshi Singh, started assaulting him with Swords. Ramsingh gave a blow by the butt of country made pistol on the head of Munshi Singh, while the remaining assailants belabored him with swords. Ramsingh kicked Govind Lodhi and exhorted other miscreants to kill him. However, Govind was able to escape, but Munshi died on the spot. First Information Report (Ex. P/19) was lodged by Govind Lodhi at Police Station Khurai and after 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.

Govind (PW 3), cited as an eye-witness, was declared hostile. Phool Singh (PW 8) has also not corroborated the fact that he was informed by Govind Singh (PW 13) that offence was committed by the respondents. Other witnesses Neeran (PW 2), Hari (PW 6), Hemant (PW 7), Gutran (PW 9), Deshraj (PW 10) have also been declared hostile. Considering all this, trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, acquitted the respondents.

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.