AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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 4/7/12 passed by Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in Sessions Trial No. 129/2011, whereby respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 /34 in alternative Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 31/1/2011, Santosh Kumar Patel, Railway Porter, by way of Morgue No. 11/2011, informed at Police Station Narsinghpur that between Kareli and Narsinghpur, on the 895/0 Uptrack No. 274, dead body of a person aged about 35 years was lying. During investigation, the dead body was identified to be that of Bharat Lodhi and it surfaced that 11/2 months prior to the date of incident, an altercation had taken place between mother of Bharat and respondent nos. 2 and 3 and to wreak vengeance, the respondents had killed Bharat by Axe and Screwdriver and for causing disappearance of the corresponding evidence, had thrown his dead body on the Railway Track.
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.
The whole case of the prosecution was based upon circumstantial evidence. After going through all the evidence produced by the prosecution, learned trial Court has held that chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete. Evidence of last seen, adduced by Bhagwati Bai (PW1), mother of Bharat, was also disbelieved by the trial Court taking into consideration the evidence of Asha Bai (PW2), who deposed that that at the relevant point of time, accused were going all alone. Blood stains were also not found on the seized Axe and Screwdriver. Besides this, in paragraph 26 of the impugned judgment, it was also held that as per the evidence of Dr. R.P. Fauzdar (PW11), it could not be determined whether death of Bharat was homicidal or accidental in nature.
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.