The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Sultan Singh

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). By the impugned judgment dated 5/1/11 passed by Sessions Judge, Sessions Division, Damoh in Sessions Trial No. 297/08, respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC"). Respondent no. 1 Sultan Singh is husband of Paanbai (since deceased).

As per the prosecution story, respondents were involved in subjecting Paanbai to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry and, ultimately, on 4/9/2008 at about 5 p.m., dead body of Paan Bai, under suspicious circumstances, was found hanging in the Corral.

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.

Considering the evidence of parents of Paanabi viz. Jahar Singh (PW3), Premrani (PW4) coupled with other evidence and material available on record, trial Court held that 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 judgment of acquittal in question. The application, therefore, stands dismissed in limine.