State of Madhya Pradesh vs Jalim Singh and Radheshyam

B.D. Rathi, J.—This appeal u/s 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) has been filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 19-03-1999 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 10/1997 whereby respondents were acquitted of the charge under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC). The prosecution story, in brief is that on 21-06-1996 at about 2:00 pm the respondents have pushed Mahila Imrat W/o Khachchu in a well which has resulted in her death. After enquiry, the FIR Ex-P/12 has been registered at crime No. 79/1996 at Police Station Badarwas District Shivpuri and during investigation it has come on record that Mahila Imrat has been assaulted and threatened to kill by respondent No. 2-Radheshyam. Thereafter, Imrat ran away from the spot, she was chased by respondents and respondent No. 2-Radheshyam pushed her in a well in order to commit murder. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.

During the trial, the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and contended that they had been falsely implicated.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence produced by the prosecution. Though sufficient evidence was available on record to convict the respondents even then respondents were acquitted. It was also submitted that the appeal may be allowed and respondents be convicted.

On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submitted while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record that the acquittal is well merited, appeal be dismissed.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the entire evidence and material available on record.

To bring the charge at home, the prosecution examined Mukesh Sharma (PW-1), Rajendra Singh (PW-2), Dr. L.S. Machariya (PW-3), Khachchu (PW-4), Kaliya (PW-5), Jeet (PW-6), Meharban Singh (PW-7), Raghuvir Singh (PW-8), Ram Singh (PW-9), Investigating Officer, Indraveer Singh Bhadoriya (PW-10). Respondents have examined Ram Singh as DW-1 in their defence.

It is an admitted fact that Dr. L.S. Machariya (PW-3) and Dr. B.P. Pachauri who had conducted autopsy opined in autopsy report Ex-P/6 dated 22-06-1996 that mode of death was asphyxia because of respiration obstruction as a result of drowning. They have also found as many as 10 ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased having nature of three abrasions, two multiple contusions and five lacerated wounds.

After taking into consideration the entire evidence and material available on record, it was found by the trial Court that Khachchu PW-4 husband of the deceased was not present on the spot and he was out of station. Similarly, Kaliya PW-5 was not an eyewitness and as per her deposition, Imrat (since deceased) was assaulted by knife by the respondents but no corresponding injuries of knife were found present over the body of the deceased.

Testimony of child witness, Jeetu PW-6 son of deceased was also disbelieved by the trial Court and his evidence was discarded because it was full of contradictions, omissions and exaggerations. Meharban Singh PW-7, Chowkidar of the village who was the material witness deposed that Jeetu and Kaliya informed him that Imrat Bai fell down in a well, meaning thereby, he was not informed by the eyewitnesses Jeetu (PW-6) and Kaliya (PW-5) that the deceased was assaulted and pushed in a well by the respondents. Meharban Singh PW-7 is a close relative of the deceased, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve him. In Marg intimation also, police has also not been informed that murder of Imrat Bai was committed by the respondents in the aforesaid manner.

It was also found by the trial Court that possibility of false implication of respondents could not be ruled out because one private complaint No. 258/1997 was filed against the Investigating Officer, Indraveer Singh Bhadoriya (PW-10) and Mahesh Bediya Police Constable by Jeewan Singh S/o Buddharam who was the brother of respondent-Jalim Singh. That private complaint was filed on 22-12-1995 much before the date of incident of present case.

After appreciation of the evidence and other material on record, learned trial Court has passed the judgment of acquittal in favour of the respondents. The respondents are on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged.

In our considered opinion, impugned judgment of acquittal is well merited and there is nothing on record to interfere in the judgment. Accordingly appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent alongwith the record to the learned trial Court.