The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Shiv Narayan

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on admission. This application for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 23/07/2012 passed by the II Additional Session Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur, in Sessions Trial No. 10/2011 whereby respondent no. 1 Shiv Narayan has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201 & 404 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and respondent nos. 2 & 3 namely Pavan and Dinesh @ Dinnu have been acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 302/34 & 201 of the IPC.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27/8/10, during 3 to 7.30 p.m. and between Salechouka Square to Bankhedi, in furtherance of their common intention to kill Pappu alias Madhav Singh (since deceased), respondents abducted and took him to the field of one Jhandan Wali Bau and strangulated him to death and for causing disappearance of the corresponding evidence, brought the dead body to a Jungle and set fire to it and respondent Shivnarayan also dishonestly misappropriated a 12 bore double barrel gun, one Motorcycle, one gold ring, one silver ring and a Watch belonging to the deceased. Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/16) and Morgue intimation (Ex. P/17) were recorded during investigation into Missing Person Report 55/10 and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

Learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to be interfered with.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were perused.

The entire case of the prosecution was based upon circumstantial evidence. Evidence of Durgesh Patel (PW7) was disbelieved by the trial Court on the ground that he had remained silent for a period of two months and during this period neither informed family members of the deceased nor the police. His evidence was also not corroborated by that of any other witness. Balram (PW2) deposed that deceased was not known to him. He further deposed that one day an unknown person was sitting with Shivnarayan, Pavan, Laxminarayan and Chuttan in his field, and 8-10 days after the incident, seeing the photograph of the deceased in a pamphlet, he identified him to be that unknown person and had immediately informed Rajiv Pachori. Balbhadra Singh (PW1) deposed that Raju Pachori had informed him that Balram had seen his brother viz. the deceased with the respondents. However, Rajiv Pachori (DW1) did not corroborate their evidence. The trial Court further found it quite unnatural that Balram identified the deceased, whom he had seen only once, by looking at his photograph in a pamphlet. The motive behind the offence was also not proved from the evidence on record. The bones allegedly seized at the instance of respondent Shivnarayan were sent for examination to Medicolegal Institute, Gandhi Medical College, Gwalior. As per the corresponding report (Ex. P/24), DNA examination was advised, but the prosecution had not sent the same for DNA test. According to the report, though the same were found to be human bones, yet there was nothing on record to establish that the bones were of the deceased. Similarly, in absence of any remnants of the seized burnt Motorcycle with regard to Engine Number and Chasis Number, it was not proved that the same belonged to the deceased. From the record it was found that at the time of seizure of Gun, respondent Shivnarayan was in judicial custody and, therefore, it was not proved that the Gun was recovered at his instance. Trial Court also found the identification of gold and silver rings to be vitiated as the same, being dented, were not mixed with identical rings. There was nothing on record to prove that the Bhu Adhikar and Rin Pustika belonging to the deceased was taken by Dinnu in his possession in view of the fact that no information was given by Dinnu to the Police for its seizure. Though Balbhadra (PW1) identified the watch to be that of the deceased, yet, he did not give any specific identification of the same and no bill or receipt was produced by him to establish that it belonged to the deceased. In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete and the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 order of acquittal in question. The application, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.