AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This application is preferred to have leave to appeal the
judgment dated 11.5.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Rajgarh in Sessions Case No.10/2010 acquitting the
accused-respondents from the charges pertaining to offence
punishable under Sections 447, 302 or 302/34 and 120-B IPC .
The learned trial court after examining the entire evidence
available on record arrived at the conclusion that no evidence is
available on record to indicate only one conclusion i.e. about the
involvement of the accused persons in the crime in-question.
Learned trial court while arriving at such conclusion did not believe
the eye-witnesses; the witnesses pertaining to recovery of weapon
of offence and also certain other circumstantial evidence such as
availability of the accused persons in the vicinity where the crime
was committed.
On examination of record of the case also we do not find any
material evidence sufficient to record conviction of the accused
respondents. True it is, the prosecution produced three eye-
witnesses which are PW-2, PW-7 and PW-13 but they are not at all
trustworthy as during the course of investigation they never
disclosed their presence or to be more specific the incident of
witnessing occurrence of the crime in-question. During
cross-examination they utterly failed to satisfy as to why they did
not disclose their presence at the place of occurrence while
making statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C., before the
Investigating Officer. So far as the evidence relating to recovery is
concerned, that too is not sufficient to be treated as a cogent
material to indicate involvement of the accused respondents in the
crime. The recovery as per recovery memo was made from an
open place, which is accessible to each and every person. In
view of it, we do not find any wrong with the judgment given by
the trial court. The application seeking leave to appeal is
dismissed.