Sher Singh vs Rakesh Kumar

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 24/10/11 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Sessions Trial No. 71/2011, whereby respondent nos. 1 and 2 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).

Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 31/10/2010, Mastram (PW4), by way of Morgue No. 58/10, informed at Police Station Bandol that a dead body was lying in the runnel situated between Nagjhar and Balpura. During investigation, the dead body was identified to be that of Sheru alias Ravishankar Baghel. Shersingh (PW1), father of Ravishankar, lodged a Dehati Nalishi at the spot, to the effect that on 29/10/2010, at 8 p.m., Ravishankar had gone out of the house and did not return in the night. When on the next day also he did not return, he was searched for. On 31/10/2010 at 2 p.m., when complainant Sher Singh was returning from Seoni, he was informed by someone in the way that a dead body was lying in the Nagjhar river. Then he, along with other villagers, rushed towards the spot and found that dead body of his son Sheru alias Ravishankar was lying there. According to him, Sheru was killed by unknown persons for reasons best known to them.

Learned counsel for the appellant, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the impugned judgment deserves to be interfered with.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have gone through the impugned judgment and evidence on record.

After proper appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court has held that prosecution has failed to prove its case. Statement of material witness Vishwanath (PW2) was recorded u/s 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 14/12/10, after a period of about 11/2 months. As per the evidence of this witness, Ravishankar had died in an accident with a Tractor belonging to Nanu Baghel. In para 13 of his evidence, it was admitted by him that in police statement (Ex. D/2), he did not disclose the name of the driver of Tractor. In view of the trial Court, due to important contradictions and omissions present in the evidence of material witnesses, case of prosecution had crumbled.

We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.

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, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.