The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Bholanath Singh

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on admission. This is an application for grant of leave to appeal u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Code" for short) against the acquittal of respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with Section 34, 294, 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ''the IPC''). The corresponding judgment was passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Singrouli in Sessions Trial No. 160/2010 on 7.8.2012. By the impugned judgment only, respondents were convicted u/s 323 (on two counts) of the IPC and were released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.11.2007 at about 6:30 pm at Dudhichua Colony NCL, respondents, in furtherance of their common intention, attempted murder of Rahul (PW7) by inflicting injuries with the Butt of Kudali on his head and inflicted simple injuries to Awdhesh Tiwari (PW4) by pelting stones on him, and also abused and threatened to kill them. Report of the incident was lodged by complainant Awdhesh Tiwari and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

Learned Government Advocate submitted that the trial Court had erred in appreciating the evidence on record and the judgment of acquittal deserved to be interfered with.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, record of the trial Court was perused.

After taking into consideration the evidence of Dr. Amrit Kumar (PW9), Dr. P.S. Verma (PW1), Injured Rahul and Awadhesh Tiwari, trial Court held that the injuries which were caused to the victims were simple in nature and on that basis respondents were convicted u/s 323 of the IPC instead of 307, IPC. Evidence to prove the offence u/s 294 and 506 Part II of the IPC was not at all on record.

We agree with the findings recorded 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 face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view. As such, no interference is called for with the judgment of acquittal in question. The application, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.