Smt. Laxmi vs Smt. Urmila and Others

Brij Kishore Dube, J.—This is second round. In the first round also, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. On the earlier dates i.e., 24.06.2013, 08.07.2013 & 25.07.2013 also none appeared on behalf of the appellant. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, therefore, heard on the question of admission and perused the record. Against the judgment of acquittal dated 02/05/2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 38/2011 acquitting the respondent No. 4 herein/accused, Kaptan from the charge punishable under Sections 323 & 328 of IPC and the respondents No. 1 to 3 & 5 to 7 herein/accused from the charge punishable under Sections 323 & 328 read with 149 of IPC, this appeal has been preferred by the victim, Smt. Laxmi u/s 372 of Cr.P.C.

The legality and propriety of the impugned judgment has been challenged on the ground of misappreciation of the evidence on record.

The learned Trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the evidence in detail ultimately in the impugned judgment found that the offence charged against the respondents No. 1 to 7/accused has not been found proved on account of non-availability of the cogent evidence on record.

I have carefully gone through the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court and found that the learned Trial Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the charge levelled against the respondents No. 1 to 7 is not proved and, eventually, acquitted them.

I do not want to deviate from the view taken by the learned Trial Court because the learned Trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondents No. 1 to 7 from the charge, therefore, there is no perversity and illegality in the impugned judgment.

It is well settled law that, if two views are possible on the same set of evidence, the view taken by the learned Trial Court acquitting the accused should not be lightly brushed aside. In this context, I may profitably place reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Arulvelu and Another Vs. State represented by the Public Prosecutor and Another, . Hence, by this judgment, I hereby extend the stamp of approval to the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court. Resultantly, this appeal is found to be devoid of merit and substance, the same is hereby dismissed summarily.