The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Shyamlal

Subhash Kakade, J.—By means of filing the present application for leave to appeal u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the State has assailed the order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhindwara (MP) in Criminal Case No. 3140/2003 decided on 27/02/2008. By the judgment under challenge, learned trial judge acquitted the respondents, hereinafter referred as the accused, from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 323/34 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code.

To appreciate the say of the applicant/State, I would like to say that basic case that was placed before the trial Court in nutshell is that on dated 28.08.03 complainant Devi Prasad was going to take meal in his elder son''s house, while he was passing in front of Shyamlal''s house, respondents Shyamlal, Sablal and Ramlal attacked him by means of lathi and far of iron due to previous enmity. On the information, a case was registered against the accused and after completion of due investigation they have been charge-sheeted.

Learned trial Court framed charges punishable under Sections 323/34 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused who abjured their guilt; therefore, they were put to trial.

The prosecution has examined complainant Deviprasad (PW. 1), Sushila Bai (PW. 2), Sakarlal (PW. 3), Dr. D. Moitra (PW. 4), Aatmaram (PW. 5), Raju (PW. 6), Asadu (PW. 7), Dr. K.K. Shrivastava (PW. 8), Sanju (PW. 9), Vishnu Verma (PW. 10), Dr. Gagan Kolhe (PW. 11) and exhibited 12 documents to prove its case. During the statement u/s 313 of the Cr. P.C. the accused denied all the evidence put up against them and pleaded their innocence. Defence has examined Smt. Savitri Bai (DW. 1) and Subhash Uike (DW. 2).

Learned trial judge after appreciating the evidence on record, recorded impugned judgment of acquittal.

Shri Yogendra Das Yadav, learned PL appearing for the State has taken me through the entire judgment and main grounds of challenge mentioned in the memo of appeal, and pointed out error that has allegedly committed at the time of recording of the findings of acquittal by the learned trial Court.

Learned trial court, after appreciating the evidence of Complainant Devi Prasad (PW. 1), Sushila Bai (PW. 2), Sakarlal (PW. 3) and Sanju (PW. 9) found material contradictions, omissions and exaggerations in their evidence and also found:-

(i) that statement of complainant Devi Prasad (PW. 1) is not consistent with the weapons used by the accused and injuries inflicted on his person with regard to FIR and medical report;

(ii) that Sushila Bai (PW. 2) and Sanju (PW. 9) are interested witnesses.

(iii) that existence of enmity between the parties is proved.

(iv) that independent witness Sakarlal (PW. 3) did not support the case of prosecution and was declared hostile.

The High Court can consider any special feature in a particular case and cannot ignore the effect which the granting of leave to appeal without due discrimination may have on the principles of normal presumption of innocence of the accused in our criminal law which has been further reinforced and strengthened by the order of acquittal by the trial court. Accordingly, unless the High Court is satisfied, considered in the light above, about some indications or error in a judgment of acquittal, the High Court may not grant leave.

The learned Panel Lawyer could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. It is a well settled principle of law that unless the judgment of acquittal is palpably wrong and grossly unreasonable, interference in the application for leave to file appeal is not called for.

Hence this application for grant of leave to appeal is dismissed.