State of Madhya Pradesh vs Mitthulal

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 appellant/State against the judgment of acquittal dated 19-07-1999 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha in Sessions Trial No. 171/1998 whereby respondent was acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 302 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC). The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18-06-1998 at about 2 pm Pradeep had been left by his mother Tarabai playing outside the home and had gone to take bath in river and when she returned Pradeep was not found there. Respondent -Mitthulal had informed that Pradeep had been kidnapped by three persons and they were demanding the ransom of Rs. 50,000/- from the father of Pradeep. On search, dead body of Pradeep has been found near the pond of village Hirnai. FIR Ex-P/13 has been registered as crime No. 136/1998 at police station Dehat Vidisha for the offence punishable under Sections 364 and 386 of IPC and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections and 364, 386 and 302 of IPC.

During the trial, the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed under Sections 363 and 302 of IPC and contended that he had been falsely implicated.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State submitted that learned trial Court has not appreciated the entire evidence and material available on record properly. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by producing cogent and reliable evidence. It was also prayed that the appeal be allowed and respondent be convicted and sentenced accordingly.

On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the judgment of acquittal is well merited. Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. No interference is called for in the impugned judgment. Prayer was made for the dismissal of appeal.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have perused the entire evidence and material available on record as well as the impugned judgment of trial Court.

The entire case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence including:

i. Last seen evidence

ii. Finger print of the respondent found on the bottle of liquor seized from the spot.

iii. Weapon -Iron Rod used in commission of offence was seized at the instance of respondent.

To bring home the charges, prosecution has produced as many as 16 witnesses, namely, father of deceased Balaram (PW-1), mother of deceased Tarabai (PW-2), uncle of deceased Bholaram (PW-3), Gyan Singh (PW-4), Khushilal (PW-5), Kamal Singh (PW-6), Mahesh Kumar (PW-7), Imrat Singh (PW-8), Omkar Singh (PW-9), Head Constable Bhoop Singh Bhadoriya (PW-10), Constable Ramesh Sharma (PW-11), Head Constable Balkrishna (PW-12), Head Constable Anil Bhadoriya (PW-13), ASI R.D. Katiyar (PW-14), SHO N.S. Rathore (PW-15) and Dr. Vikas Kumar (PW-16).

For the last seen evidence Gyan Singh (PW-4) and Khushilal (PW-5) were examined. The testimony of Gyan Singh was rightly discarded by the trial Court on the ground that it was in his knowledge that missing boy Pradeep was being searched by his father and other people of the village but even then the fact of last seen was not disclosed by him to anybody. Testimony of Khushilal (PW-5) was discarded by the trial Court because his evidence was full of contradictions, omissions and exaggerations.

So far as the evidence regarding finger print was concerned, it was found by the trial Court that seizure of the liquor bottle vide seizure memo Ex-P/3 dated 20-06-1998 by Head Constable Anil Bhadoriya (PW-13) from the spot was doubtful as well as prosecution has failed to prove that bottle had been sealed on the spot before sending it to the finger print expert. Head Constable Anil Bhadoriya (PW-13) has not deposed in his evidence that bottle was sealed on the spot.

Learned trial Court has held that the prosecution has also failed to prove its case on the basis of weapon -Iron Rod seized vide seizure memo Ex-P/7 dated 24-06-1998 at the instance of respondent which was used in commission of offence because as per FSL report Ex-P/24, it was not mentioned that on the article -F (Iron Rod) blood stained found, was of human being. The blood grouping was also not proved.

We have also gone through the entire record of the trial Court. We are of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly passed the judgment of acquittal.

It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusion 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 basis of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the trial Court was apparently a possible view. As such, no interference is called for in the judgment of acquittal in question. The appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with record.