The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Dharma Singh

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard on admission.

The State has preferred an application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 8.3.2010 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Tikamgarh in Special Case No.318/05, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of offences under Sections 302 or 302/ 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred as ''the Special Act'').

The prosecution''s case in short is that on 21.7.2005 at about 8-9:00 p.m., the respondents were playing gambling with the help of play cards at village Sukwaha (Police Station Kotwali, Tikamgarh). The deceased Bhagola was standing near them. The respondents directed him to go away and when he did not comply their directions, they assaulted him by kicks and fists. The respondent Dharam Singh had also assaulted him by a stick. After sometime, the deceased Bhagola was found in a ruined house. Malua father of the deceased alongwith other witnesses took him to the house. The deceased was complaining about pain in his abdomen and told about crime committed by the respondents. He was taken to the hospital but on the next day, he died at Government Hospital, Tikamgarh. After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

After considering the submissions made by learned Government Advocate and considering the evidence recorded in favour of the prosecution, it appears that Dr. Tiwari (PW-1), who performed the postmortem of the deceased Bhagola found that there was an abrasion of his right forearm and blunt injury on neck. Various prosecution witnesses including the eyewitnesses related to oral dying declaration namely Raghvendra Singh (PW-4), Ramua (PW-6), Halkai (PW- 7), Kharga (PW-8) and Malua (PW-9) have turned hostile. However, the witness Ramua has stated that the deceased Bhagola had informed that the respondent Dharam Singh assaulted him by a stick and gave a kick. However, in the cross-examination, he has accepted that Bhagola was his nephew. When he was taken to the house, Bhagola did not say anything and he was not in a position to tell anything. Similarly, Chironjiya (PW-5) mother of the deceased has stated that Bhagola informed about the incident. However, she did not say that any of the respondent caused any injury on the abdomen of the deceased. The narration as given by the witness Chironjiya was not corroborated by Dr. Tiwari (PW-1). No such injury of stone or stick was found to Bhagola as narrated by Chironjiya. It appears that being mother of the deceased, the witness Chironjiya, she is implicating the respondents without any basis. The evidence of the witness Chironjiya was contrary to the medical evidence, which could not be believed.

Under such circumstances, there was no ocular evidence against the respondents, whereas chain of circumstantial evidence is broken. When a doubt is created then, benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid charges. No illegality or perversity is visible in the judgment passed by the trial Court. There is no reason to give any permission to file an appeal against the impugned judgment.

Consequently, the leave application filed by the State is hereby dismissed at motion stage.

Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information alongwith its record.