Puspraj Dubey 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 14/9/12 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tahsil Beohari, District Shahdol in Sessions Trial No. 131/10. Whereby respondent nos. 2 to 9 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 342 /149, 323 /149 and 436 /149 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).

Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 1/4/2010 at about 10-11 p.m., respondent nos. 2 to 9 constituted an un-lawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, not only roped and wrongfully confined Pushpraj Dubey, who was sleeping outside his house, but also assaulted him and set fire to his house. The incident was witnessed by Raghuraj Singh, Shobhnath and Chandrika Dubey (PW 2). On a written complaint (Ex. P/1), First Information Report (Ex. P/2) was registered at Police Station Jaisinghnagar. 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 trial Court has held that the whole evidence adduced by the prosecution is full with contradictions, omissions and exaggerations. It was also held that due to previous enmity with regard to the Panchayat election, respondent nos. 2 to 9 were falsely implicated and this fact was admitted also by Chandrika Dubey.

As per the Nuksani Panchnama (Ex. P/5) prepared by the Police, the total damages were assessed at Rs. 30,000/-, but complainant Pushpraj Dubey (PW 11) deposed that he had suffered loss to the extent to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs. Evidence of witnesses was not found trustworthy by the trial Court.

On perusal of statement of the witnesses, we are of the considered view that the findings recorded by the trial Court, are well merited and the impugned judgment 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.