AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This criminal appeal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed assailing the judgment dated 21.10.2024 passed in S.T. No.36/2019 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kotma District Anuppur, whereby the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 342, 367, 325 or 325 read with Section 34 of IPC.
As per the prosecution story, on 11.02.2019 at about 3:00 p.m., the complainant had gone to his agricultural land situated on Budhanpur Road, Kotma, where the house of Ashok Patwari is located. Upon reaching there, Ajay alias Lallan Soni, brother of Ashok Patwari, called him inside the house on the pretext of having a conversation. After the complainant entered the house, Ajay alias Lallan Soni asked him to sit, locked the house from outside, and called his brothers, Chotani alias Anil Soni and Manoj Soni. Thereafter, the accused persons allegedly assaulted the complainant with a wooden stick and the handle of a spade, causing injuries to his head and near both knees. On the basis of the aforesaid incident, Crime No. 52/2019 was registered against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 342, 367, 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet before the competent Court, where the case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 36/2019 for trial. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court.
After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and appreciating the evidence led by parties, learned trial Court acquitted the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 of the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 342, 367, 325 or 325 read with Section 34 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
4 . Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to the facts, evidence available on record, and settled principles of law. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, which establishes the involvement of the respondents in the commission of the offence. It is further submitted that by allowing this appeal the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 be convicted and findings recorded by the learned trial Court be set aside.
On the other learned counsel for respondents supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the trial Court has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and thereafter passed the judgment of acquittal. The impugned judgment is neither arbitrary nor perverse. Minor contradictions or omissions do not affect the core prosecution story. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is well settled. Unless the findings recorded by the trial Court are shown to be manifestly illegal or based on complete misreading of the evidence, the appellate Court would be slow in reversing an order of acquittal, particularly when the view taken by the trial Court is a reasonably possible view on the evidence available on record.
In the present case, the learned trial Court has undertaken a detailed appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and has assigned cogent reasons for extending the benefit of doubt to respondent Nos.2 to 4. The prosecution case is based upon the testimony of the complainant Ashok Narwani (PW-4). However, the prosecution failed to receive corroboration from the independent witnesses. Monu Mishra (PW-1), Naveen Shukla (PW-2) and Anwar Ali (PW-5), who were projected as material witnesses, did not support the prosecution version during trial and were declared hostile. Their testimony did not establish either the alleged confinement or the assault attributed to the respondents. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that when independent witnesses fail to support the prosecution case, the evidence of the complainant is required to be scrutinized with greater caution.
The testimony of the complainant (PW-4) also suffers from material contradictions, omissions and improvements. His version regarding the manner of occurrence, the role assigned to each accused, the place of assault and the sequence of events was found to be inconsistent with his previous statements. The learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly held that it would not be safe to base conviction solely upon such uncorroborated testimony.
The injuries reflected in MLC (Exhibits P/7 and P/8) do not fully correspond with the manner of assault alleged by the complainant. The trial Court has further noticed serious infirmities relating to the radiological evidence. The earlier X-ray report indicating fracture was not proved in a satisfactory manner, thereby creating a reasonable doubt about the subsequent X-ray report regarding the nature of the alleged grievous injury. The divergence between the ocular version and the medical evidence further weakens the prosecution case.
The evidence regarding the alleged confinement inside the house remained uncorroborated and fully contradicted because, in the court’s statement the complainant stated that, the incident happened at the house of Ajay Soni but, in the earlier statements as well as the FIR it was stated that the incident happened at the house of Ashok Patwari therefore, looking to the material contradictions the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was abducted, assaulted or confined in the manner alleged. Likewise, the prosecution did not produce any convincing evidence establishing the recovery of the alleged weapons in a manner inspiring confidence. The evidentiary value of the memorandum and seizure proceedings was also rightly examined by the trial Court in the light of the deficiencies noticed during trial.
This Court finds that the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record and cannot be termed as either perverse or contrary to law. Merely because another view may also be possible on reappreciation of evidence would not justify interference with a well-reasoned order of acquittal.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment dated 21.10.2024 does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or misappreciation of evidence warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, the criminal appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.