Arvind Kumar Gupta vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Subhash Kakade, J.—Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

This Revision u/s 397/401 of Cr. P.C. has been filed by the complainant against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.10.13 passed by learned Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Criminal Appeal No. 122/2010 affirming the judgment of acquittal dated 11.11.09 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chhatarpur, District Chhatarpur acquitting the respondent from the charge punishable under Sections 365, 387, 506 Part-II and 347 of IPC.

As per prosecution case, on 04.08.06, respondent No. 2/Vivek Bajpai @ Pintoo abducted applicant with an intention to cause secret and wrongful confinement for extorting, by putting fear of grievous injuries.

Initially respondent has been charged for the offence punishable under the aforesaid sections, but after appreciation of evidence, learned Courts below have acquitted the respondent. Hence, this application.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that learned Courts below have failed to consider the statements of the witnesses in their true perspective. It has been wrongly held that no one has seen the accused abducting the applicant. The reason of lodging of FIR with delay was that the applicant was in grave fear and was admitted in hospital for treatment, when he became well the FIR was got registered. Learned Courts below have given over weightage to the contradictions between the police statement and evidence of applicant (P.W. 1). On the above grounds, it is prayed that this application may be allowed and respondent may be convicted.

Learned PL appearing for the State informed this Court that no appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal.

After perusing the impugned judgment, I find that both the Courts below found the following facts:-

(i) That, as per main prosecution story after abduction/kidnapping complainant Arvind Gupta (P.W. 1) was found at Railway Station, Banda. This fact is totally contrary to the evidence of Arvind Gupta (P.W. 1) and Investigating Officer Shivshankar Mishra (P.W. 7) as both have stated that complainant was present at his house on dated 07.08.06 as per Dastyabi Panchnama (Ex. P/1);

(ii) That, FIR (Ex. P/7) is lodged after a delay of 12 days on dated 18.08.06 and no explanation has been given for this delay;

(iii) It is forcefully stated by the P.W. 1 that he has lodged FIR, but this document is not available on record;

(iv) That, kidnapping of complainant Arvind Gupta is not witnessed by any eyewitness and telephonic information is also not found reliable;

(v) The vehicle Bolero used during the kidnapping is not seized from the respondent.

In the above facts and circumstances, learned Courts below found the statements of complainant Arvind Gupta (P.W. 1) as well as his brothers Rajendra Gupta (P.W. 2), Rajesh Gupta (P.W. 4), and other person Ajay Awasthi (P.W. 3) not reliable.

I also found that the learned courts below rightly appreciated evidence put forth by the prosecution against the respondent No. 2 and acquitted him. Therefore, on the merits also, this revision deserves to be dismissed.

The settled principle of law need not be repeated that unless the judgment of acquittal is palpably wrong and grossly unreasonable, interference in a case filed by private complainant, is not called for.

Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.