Back
2009 Supreme(MP) 1402
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
K.S. CHAUHAN, J.
State Of M.P. – Appellant
Versus
Chandan Singh – Respondent
Cri. Appeal No. 2505 of 2000
Decided on : 10-09-2009
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : G. P. Singh
For the Respondent: R. P. Khare
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that when two views are possible, the view taken by the trial court should be accepted.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Acquittal under Indian Penal Code - Section 323/34, 325/34, 506 Part-II - [323, 324, 294, 325, 506-B, 34] - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, highlighting contradictions and omissions in the prosecution evidence. The court also emphasized the principle that when two views are possible, the view taken by the trial court should be accepted. The court referred to legal precedents to support the principle of not interfering with the finding of acquittal recorded by the court below.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the respondents assaulted the complainant and his family members, causing injuries. The respondents denied the charges, claiming to be falsely implicated. After trial, the court acquitted the respondents, leading to the appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution evidence had contradictions and omissions, and the complainant provided different versions regarding the cause of the incident. The court emphasized that the trial court's acquittal should not be interfered with when two views are possible.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court below committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the charges under section 323/34, 325/34, and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that when two views are possible, the view taken by the trial court should be accepted. It referred to legal precedents to support this principle.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the order of acquittal passed by the court below was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
This criminal appeal under section 378(i) and (iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 5-2-2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raisen in S.T. No. 41/97, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges under sections 323/34, 325/34 and 506 Part-II of Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case in short is that Bhojraj r/o Village Sadrai lodged F.I.R. at police station Deori on 16-7-1996 at 22:30 to the effect that on that day at about 12 noon he was returning to his house after worshipping God. As soon as he reached in front of his house Brijlal Lodhi abused him and asked as to why he threw garbage (Ghura) in his field. He inflicted lathi blow at his head. Other respondents who were hiding there in a hut came there and assaulted him with lathi on account of which he received injuries. His mother Parwati Bai and sister Bhuri Bai also sustained injuries. Kodulal and Ramesh Lodhi saved him. On the basis of this report Crime No. 81/96 under sections 323, 324, 294, 325 and 506/34 of Indian Penal Code was registered. The injured persons were sent for medical examination. The injuries were found on their persons as mentioned in the medical reports. Bhuri Bai sustained fracture in the forearm of her right hand. The map was prepared. The accused persons were arrested. The lathis were recovered from the respondents. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing the investigation the charge-sheet under sections 323, 324, 325, 294, 506-B, 34 of Indian Penal Code was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Udaipura. The case was committed to the Sessions Court under section 323 of Criminal Procedure Code because the counter case was exclusively triable by Sessions Court.
3. The respondents were charged under section 323/34 (two counts), 325/34 and 506 Part-II of Indian Penal Code. They denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. Their defence was that the complainant party caused marpeet of Bhojraj S/o Brijlal for which the matter was reported to the concerned police. As a counter-blast the report was lodged by the complainant. Prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and the respondents also examined one witness. After appreciating the evidence they were not found guilty and hence acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh after taking leave from this Court on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.
4. Shri G. P. Singh, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/State submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. There is ocular and medical evidence to establish that the respondents caused marpeet of Bhojraj, Parwati Bai and Bhuri Bai on account of which they sustained injuries. Bhuri Bai also sustained fracture. The prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt in spite of the trial Court has acquitted them. The finding of the Court below is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and the respondents be convicted and sentenced.
5. On the contrary, Shri R. P. Khare, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment mainly contending that there are several contradictions and omissions in the prosecution evidence. The Court below has rightly held that the complainant party was the aggressor. The Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them hence does not call for any interference.
6. The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the Court below has committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the charge under section 323/34 (two counts) and 325/34 and 506 Part-II of Indian Pe
