Pushpraj Bharti vs Jayendra

D.K. Paliwal, J.—Heard.

This petition has been preferred u/s 397/401 of Cr. P.C. against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge, Gwalior in S.T. No. 9/2006, whereby the respondents No. 1 to 4 have been acquitted for the charges u/s 366/34, 452 of IPC.

According to the prosecution case, the applicant has lodged a report that on 18.11.2004 he was in his house at about 4.00 PM Chironjilal, Dr. Bharat Singh and others entered in his house and forcibly took away Mamta @ Baby. After due investigation charge sheet was filed and the case was committed before the Sessions Court for trial. The learned trial Court has recorded the statements of the witnesses and acquitted the respondents No. 1 to 4. Being aggrieved the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

It is submitted that the judgment of acquittal is illegal. The learned trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence. It is further submitted that the report has immediately been lodged. Thus, from the evidence the charges under Sections 366/34 and 452 of IPC have fully established. The learned trial Court committed grave error in acquitting the respondents No. 1 to 4.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5/State has supported the impugned judgment.

I have perused the record. Pushpraj Bharti (PW-4) is the complainant. According to him Jayendra, Dr. Bharat Singh, Chironjilal alongwith 8-10 persons entered in his house and enquired about Arvind and thereafter they took away forcibly his daughter Mamta. Vijay Sundaram (PW-5) is not an eye-witness. Mamta (PW-6) has stated that accused persons alongwith 8-10 persons entered in the house and forcibly took her. Vijay Sundaram (PW-5) in para 4 has admitted that after 18.11.2009 Pushpraj told him that Police Gujrat taken away Mamta in compliance of search warrant. B.S. Tripathi (PW-8) is the I.O. He has admitted in para 3 that on 18.11.2004 Gujrat Police came to P.S. at 11.30 AM and on the basis of search warrant Police force was made available to Gujrat Police.

The complainant Pushpraj Bharti (PW-4) has admitted in para 5 of that accused Dr. Bharat Singh is son-in-law of his elder brother. He further admitted that on 12.11.2005 he came to know that search warrant of his daughter was issued. In para 11 he has further admitted that his daughter told that Gujrat Police is with her and Gujrat Police is going to produce her in the Court of Limkheda. He has also stated that he has filed a petition. However, he denied that he has informed his counsel that Gujrat Police took her daughter to produce before the Limkheda Court. Considering the aforesaid statements of the witnesses as well as the documents, in my opinion, the learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and material on record. The learned trial Court has assigned cogent reasonings in support of its findings. There is nothing to take different view. In view of the above, this petition is devoid of any merits. Even if another view is possible on the same set of evidence, no ground is made out warranting interference against the acquittal of the respondents No. 1 to 4. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.