State of Chhattisgarh vs Hardev Kodaku and Others

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—By allowing LA. No. 02/2007, the documents filed along with this application are taken on record.

Shri Akhil Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer, is heard on LA. No. 01/2007, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the petition u/s 378 (3) of Cr.P.C.

On due consideration of the submissions of learned Panel Lawyer and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the petitioner/State has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the petition u/s 378 (3) of Cr.P.C.

LA. No. 01 of 2007, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 21 days in filing the petition u/s 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby condoned.

Learned Panel Lawyer is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondents/accused persons Hardev Kodaku, Bira and Purna Kodaku.

Police Balrampur, District Surguja, after completion of the investigation of the case registered on the report of one Rameshwari charge-sheeted the respondents/accused persons for the alleged commission of the offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the accusation of their having committed murder of deceased Somra by causing injuries on him by means of lathi and fists in the evening of 23-4-2006.

The respondents/accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication to the charge framed by the Trial Court u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The charge of murder punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was sought to be proved against the respondents/accused persons on the evidence of Ramdas (P.W. 1), Bifna (P.W. 2), Basiya (P.W. 3), Debkumar (P.W. 4), Raghuvansh (P.W. 5), Shankar Yadav (P.W. 6), Somra (P.W. 7), Smt. Mangni (P.W. 8), Hirawa (P.W. 9), Shivkumar (P.W. 10), Rajesh Kumar (P.W. 11), Anand Masih (P.W. 12), Jawahar Tirkey (P.W. 13), Bhuvaneshwar Singh (P.W. 14), Dr. R.S. Markam (P.W. 15), Arjun Kumar Singh (P.W. 16), Powni (P.W. 17) and Rameshwari (P.W. 18).

Of the above named 18 prosecution witnesses, Rameshwari (P.W. 18) alone was examined by the prosecution as an eye-witness of the alleged incident of assault on deceased Somra.

The Trial Court on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the prosecution at the trial found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses fell short of establishing the charge of murder punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents/accused persons. The Trial Court, therefore, acquitted the respondents/accused persons vide impugned judgment dated 4-4-2007.

Shri Akhil Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer vehemently argued that the Trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on flimsy and untenable grounds. Learned Panel Lawyer further submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial was more than sufficient to establish the charge of murder punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents/accused persons.

The entire prosecution case against the respondents/accused persons hinges on the solitary eye-witness account of Rameshwari (P.W. 18), who lodged the First Information Report. Rameshwari (P.W. 18), at the trial, did not support the prosecution case at all and was declared hostile. In fact, she has feigned ignorance about the alleged incident of assault on her husband Somra. Since the evidence of other prosecution witnesses was founded on the disclosure made by Rameshwari (P.W. 18) about the alleged incident of assault on her husband Somra at the hands of respondents/accused persons Hardev Kokadu, Bira and Purna Kokadu and Rameshwari (P.W. 18), has not deposed anything against the respondents/accused persons in her evidence before the Trial Court, the Trial Court obviously was left with no other option put to discard the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and record acquittal of the respondents/accused persons.

On due consideration of the submissions of learned Panel Lawyer, the findings recorded by the Trial Court leading to acquittal of respondents/accused persons Hardev Kokadu, Bira and Purna Kokadu; and the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial in general and that of Rameshwari (P.W. 18) in particular, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the Trial Court leading to acquittal of respondents/accused persons Hardev Kokadu, Bira and Purna Kokadu do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever.

Mere possibility of another view on the prosecution evidence will not by itself be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal.

We, therefore, do not find any ground for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents/accused persons.

The petition filed by the petitioner/State u/s 378(3) of Cr.PC., therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.