The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Sonu Gupta

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 Addl. Sessions Judge, Panna (MP) in S.T. No. 56/09 decided on 25/02/2010. By the judgment under challenge, learned trial judge acquitted the respondents, hereinafter referred as the accused, from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 147, 427, 435 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

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 19.07.08 between 20.00 hours to 20.30 hours, about 100 persons including accused/respondents came to sub-station and protested regarding electric power cut and abused to workers of substation. It is also alleged that this mob including accused entered in sub-station control room and damaged the property amounting to Rs. 30,000/-. A written report of the incident was lodged at PS-Ajaygarh at 2.00 AM on 20.07.08 by complainant Peer Khan and Crime No. 148/08 was registered against the respondents for offence punishable under the aforesaid sections. After completion of due investigation they have been charge-sheeted.

Learned trial Court framed charges punishable under Sections 147, 427, 435 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Damage to Public Property Act against the accused who abjured their guilt; therefore, they were put to trial.

The prosecution has examined D.K. Khare (P.W. 1), complainant Peer Khan (P.W. 2), Sunil Kumar Verma (P.W. 3), L.P. Kashyap (PW. 4), Lalmani Sen (P.W. 5) and B.P. Ahirwar (P.W. 6), and exhibited 16 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.

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

Shri Devendra Shukla, 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 prosecution witnesses found that:-

(i) D.K. Khare (P.W. 1) admitted that he is not the eye-witness of the incident and refused this suggestion that Raghunath and Peer Khan narrated the names of their opponents as the accused persons;

(ii) Eye witness Peer Khan (P.W. 2) admitted that due to darkness he did not identify any person on the spot. He frankly conceded that crowd was narrating the names of respondents, on that basis he was stating the names of the accused persons.

(iii) Sunil Kumar Verma (P.W. 3) and Lalmani Sen (P.W. 5) were declared hostile because they did not support the case of prosecution.

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.