State of M.P. vs Sanjiv Singh

Heard. This is an application for grant of leave to appeal u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code"). By the impugned judgment dated 25th June, 2013 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in S.T. No. 86/2011, respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code (in short ''IPC'').

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16-01-2011 at about 8:00 pm Jankidas was found lying in the campus of temple and blood was oozing from his head. The persons of temple had shifted Jankidas (since deceased) to Gwalior for treatment. The entire case of the prosecution was based on the circumstantial evidence of last scene.

On the information, FIR (Ex-P/2) was registered by the Police Station Noorabad District Morena as crime No. 06/2011 of the offence u/s 307 of IPC. On 21-01-2011 Jankidas had died during treatment. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the petitioner/State while making reference to the evidence on record submitted that the trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence and judgment of acquittal deserves to be interfered with.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Panel Lawyer, we have gone through the impugned judgment as well as entire evidence and material available on record.

To prove the last scene evidence prosecution has examined Banwari (PW-3). His entire evidence was discarded by the trial Court because he was chance witness and his evidence was full of contradictions, omissions and exaggerations. Remaining evidence produced by the trial Court was also disbelieved because of hearsay.

It is also pertinent to mention here that the weapon-Axe used in commission of offence was not sent to get FSL report to prove that any human blood stain was present on the Axe.

On the basis of abovementioned evidence, learned trial Court has found that prosecution has failed to complete the chain of events and acquitted the respondent. We are also agree with the finding given 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 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. Application, therefore, stands dismissed in limine.