State of Madhya Pradesh vs Hiralal, Parsram, Bharat and Prakash alias Om Prakash

The judgment of absolviter dated 30/6/1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 62 of 1994 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Hiralal and others) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha, acquitting the respondents / accused from the charge u/s 307 read with 34 of the IPC, has been made pivot in this appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after obtaining leave to file appeal. The prosecution case, in brief, may be narrated as under:

(i) That, the complainant, Mazid Khan (P.W.6 ) along with his son Jamar Ali reached to the Police Station, Basoda on 07/10/1993 at 07.50 p.m., and lodged a report to the effect that he is the resident of village Kajarayi. He alongwith his son, Zamar Ali came to Basoda for selling the ground nuts, while returning home in the evening, Dalchand and other villagers met him near the hotel situated at the Mela ground and told that the tractor of Dayaram was stationed at the Mela ground, therefore, he alongwith them reached there and sat in the trolly. At that time, accused, Omprakash came there on a bi-cycle and took a round of the trolley and went away, after some time, accused persons, Hiralal, Parsram, Bharat and Omprakash came there. The accused, Hiralal asked him about Zamar Ali (his son) then he replied that he went to the village. On this, they asked him to get down from the trolley, thereafter, Omprakash and Parsram caught hold of and took him near the electric pole whereat the accused, Hiralal told that they have to take back Rs. 150/- from Zamar Ali. Hiralal tried to cause knife injury in the chest but it was hit at the right side of back as he turned back, thereafter Bharat caused injuries by knife twice in the right wrist and shoulder of left hand. Blood started oozing out from his injuries. He tried to escape by shrieking then all the four accused ran away from the place of occurrence. On the basis of the aforesaid, the offence was registered at Crime No. 374/93 u/s 307 read with 34 of IPC. The injured, Mazid Khan was sent to for medical examination to the Civil Hospital, Basoda. Dr. Pradeep Jain, Medical Officer Civil Hospital, Basoda (P.W.4) examined the injured and vide report, Exhibit P/5-A found 3 injuries on his person.

(ii) That, the investigating agency reached at the spot, prepared spot map (Exhibit P/3). Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of the witnesses who were acquainted with the facts of the offence, and

(iii) That, during investigation, the accused persons have been arrested. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against all the four accused persons before the committal Court, which on its turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions from where it was received by the Trial Court for the trial.

The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the material placed on record framed charge as mentioned hereinabove against all the four accused persons. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of all the accused persons is of false implication and the same defence they set forth in their statements recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

To bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses and placed Exhibits P/1 to P/7, the documents on record. The accused persons have examined Ramcharan (D.W.1) and Prakash (D.W.2) in their defence.

The learned Trial Judge on the basis of evidence placed on record came to hold that charge has not been proved against the respondents as a result of which acquitted them.

In this manner, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State assailing the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court after obtaining leave to file appeal.

Legality and propriety of the impugned judgment has been challenged by the learned Panel Lawyer on the ground of misappreciation of the evidence on record. Learned Panel Lawyer, Ku. Sudha Shrivastava submits that looking to the evidence on record, it is proved that the accused persons have caused the grievous injuries to the injured/complainant, which has also been corroborated by the medical report. Learned Panel Lawyer has further argued that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the respondents, hence, this appeal be allowed and the respondents be convicted for the offence.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court and submitted that there was no evidence against the respondents on record. According to learned counsel, this appeal is having no merit and the same be dismissed.

In order to appreciate the merits of the rival contentions in a proper perspective, it would be necessary to advert to the evidence available on record.

In the present case, the prosecution has examined as many as 4 eye-witnesses; they are, Omprakash (P.W.1), Dal Chand (P.W.2), Munna Lal (P.W.3) & Mazid Khan (P.W.6). Omprakash (P.W.1) Dal Chand (P.W.2) and Munna Lal (P.W.3) have not supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, they were declared hostile, hence, the case of prosecution rests on the pivot testimony of the complainant, Mazid Khan (P.W.6). It is not out of place to mention here that the important material witness, Jamar Ali who is the son of the complainant, Mazid Khan, scriber of the FIR, R.K. Sharma, Inspector and Investigating Officer have not been examined by the prosecution.

According to Mazid Khan (P.W.6), on the date of the incident, he came to Basoda for selling ground nuts. In the evening while returning home he was standing at mela ground whereat Bhura, Lalla, Kundan & Munna met and apprised him that they will return back to their home by tractor-trolley of Dayaram which was stationed at the mela ground, therefore, he along with his son and Munna, Lalla, Kundan and Jairam reached there and sat in the trolley at about 7 p.m. At that juncture, accused, Omprakash came there and took a round of trolley and went away, thereafter, Heeralal came and asked him that he has to take back Rs. 150/- from Zamar Ali, then he replied that he returned back to the village. On this all the four accused, Heeralal, Parasram, Bharat and Prakash pulled down from the trolley and took him near the electric pole whereat the accused, Parasram and Omprakash caught hold of his hand and stripped his shirt. Accused, Heeralal dealt knife blow which struck on his back, Bharat also dealt a knife blow which hit over his right hand. Another knife blow was dealt by Bharat which struck on his waist, thereafter, accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence, then his son, Zamar Ali took him on cycle-ricksaw from there to the hospital whereat he lodged the report. He clearly deposed that the report (Exhibit P-7) was lodged at the hospital.

The learned Trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the evidence of the complainant, Mazid Khan found that the evidence of Mazid Khan does not inspire confidence.

On going through the reasonings assigned by the learned Trial Court, we are of the considered view that the learned Trial Curt has rightly arrived at the conclusion.

The learned Trial Court after considering each and every aspect of the matter in the impugned judgment came to hold that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused person.

We have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court acquitting the respondents and we find that the learned Trial Court did not commit any error in acquitting the respondents. The learned Panel Lawyer could not point out how and in what manner the judgment of learned Trial Court can be said to be erroneous and perverse.

It is well settled law that, if two views are possible on the same set of evidence, the view taken by the learned Trial Court acquitting the accused should not be lightly brushed aside. In this context, we profitably place reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Arulvelu and Another Vs. State represented by the Public Prosecutor and Another, . Hence, by this judgment, we hereby extend our stamp of approval to the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court. Resultantly, this appeal is found to be devoid of merit and substance, the same is hereby dismissed. The respondents are on bail, their bail bonds are discharged.