The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Shankar

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 acquittal of the respondents of the offences under Sections 324 and 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC"). The impugned judgment dated 19/9/2011 was passed by III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Katni, in Sessions Trial No. 73/09.

As per the prosecution story, on 4/3/2008 at about 7.30 a.m., while complainant Kamlesh was cleaning front portion of his house, respondents came there and after filthily abusing him, asked him as to why he was throwing water on the road, and thereafter started assaulting him with Hockeys and Lathis causing him injuries on left side of the head, ear, back, abdomen and private parts. When his brothers Durgesh, Sunil, Anil, mother Shyamvatibai, and sisters-in-law Khushbu and Sadhna, came for his rescue, they were also beaten. Thereafter, neighbours Gangabai and Radhabai intervened and the respondents went away saying that he would be killed if in future he ever spilled water on the road.

Learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence and the judgment of acquittal deserves to be interfered with.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate, we have gone through the impugned judgment.

On proper appreciation of evidence on record, trial Court has held in paragraphs 15 to 22 of the impugned judgment, that prosecution had not produced the X-ray reports, therefore, it was not proved that injuries were grievous in nature. As per the medical report (Ex. P/5) of Kamlesh, one lacerated wound was found present on the tip of left pinna of ear. It was suggested that, because of the disfiguration, it was a grievous injury. As per the X-ray report of Smt. Baby and Mrs. Kamlesh, no bony injuries were noticed on their bodies.

Besides this, learned trial Court has also held that ingredients to prove the offences u/s 506B and 294 of the IPC were also not established by the prosecution. Therefore, the learned trial Court found the respondents guilty u/s 325 /34 and 323 /34 of the IPC.

We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court and find that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence and learned Government Advocate could not find out any material illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. It is well settled principle of law that unless the judgment of acquittal is palpably wrong and grossly unreasonable, interference is not called for. The application, therefore, stands dismissed in limine.