Radhika Bai vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on admission. This appeal has been preferred u/s 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 15/6/11 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni, District Balaghat, in Sessions Trial No. 22/2010, whereby respondent nos. 2 & 3 namely Shivlal and Kamlesh, have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 in alternative 302 /149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").

Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 2/12/09 at about 9.30 a.m., while her husband Diliram along with their son Ashish had gone to the fields leaving her at home, Radhikabai was informed by her daughter Alka that Diliram had been assaulted, whereupon, she along with Alka went to the fields and found that her husband Diliram, drenched with blood, was lying on the ground and Ashish was crying near him. On asking, Ashish informed that when Diliram was coming with a Spade to shoo the monkeys off the field, then in the field of Narayan, Dilesh Ahir, Motu Ahir, Ravi Ahir and Radhelal Ahir filthily abused Diliram, and saying that he always used to commit theft in the fields, Dilesh assaulted with a Danda on his head while Ravi was armed with an Axe and all the four jointly assaulted Dilesh due to which he fell on the ground and as Ashish screamed, all the miscreants fled. Hearing the commotion, Ramesh Pawar and other inhabitants of the Village came on the spot. Diliram received injuries on his head and right hand. First Information Report (Ex. P/1) was lodged by appellant no. 1 Radhika. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

Learned counsel for the appellants, 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 counsel for the parties, we have gone through the record of the trial Court.

After proper appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court has found that all the accused were members of same family and there was previous enmity between the parties. Apart from this, the only eye-witness Ashish (PW 3), who is the son of deceased, has not stated in his Police statement (Ex. D/3), recorded u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the name of respondents as assailants. In First Information Report (Ex. P/1) also, names of respondents were also not mentioned. Further, it has also been held by the trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was previous agreement between the accused for committing the murder of Diliram.

On perusal of the evidence and material available on record, we fully agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court based on the proper appreciation of evidence on record.

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 order of acquittal in question. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.