Raju Yadav vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on I.A. No. 2984/2011, which is an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring this appeal. As per Office note, the appeal is barred by 24 days.

Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A. is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is, hereby condoned.

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 29.10.2010 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No. 50/09, whereby respondent nos. 2 to 6 have been acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short), while they have been convicted under Sections 147, 342 and 324 read with 149 of the IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that on receiving telephonic information that Mahipal Rajput was being beaten by people of Rajput community at Tikri, when complainant Raju Yadav along with Bhaiya Yadav had gone to Village Tikri, at that time Rajaram Rajput, Jaikaran, Ramavtar, respectively armed with Gun, 315 bore pistol, Bhartal together with Halku Rajput, Jaisingh and Dadu came there and grappled with Raju. Accused persons caught him and tied his hands and legs with rope and towel. Omkar Gautam, Ramesh and Mani Gautam, armed with double barrel gun and country made pistol, also came there and exhorted other accused persons to extract his eyes, on which Halkai and Jaikaran inflicted multiple injuries respectively with Sickle and Knife on his eyes and Halku Rajput and Dadu Rajput assaulted him with Lathis. The incident was witnessed by Jagdish Rajput, Bade Bhaiya and other villagers. After the incident Gopal, brother of Raju Yadav (PW1) and Manni Yadav came and after untying his hands and legs, took him to Police Station Chandla, where First Information Report (Ex.P/1, for short "FIR") was lodged and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the learned trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the impugned judgment deserved to be interfered with.

In response, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 6 submitted that the impugned judgment was well merited.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have gone through the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.

Dr. T.C. Sagaria (PW5) deposed in paragraph 3 of his evidence that injuries caused to Raju were simple in nature and were not sufficient to cause death. Accordingly, the trial Court, in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment, found that the injuries were neither grievous nor dangerous to life and, therefore, no offence u/s 307 of the IPC was made out.

We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.

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 judgment of acquittal in question. The appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.