State of Madhya Pradesh vs Anil Kumar

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—On behalf of the appellant-State of M.P., this appeal is preferred u/s 378(3) of Cr. P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.9.1995 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Balaghat, in Cr. Case No. 14/94 whereby, the respondent herein has been acquitted from the charge of Section 324 of I.P.C. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that, on dated 13.6.1990, at about 7 O''clock on account of previous enmity some quarrel took place between victim/complainant Dhannulal and the respondent-Anil Kumar in which some beating had also taken place and during such incident, the respondent caused the injury on the right arm of the victim by his teeth. On lodging the report at Police Station Kirnapur, the offence of Section 324 of I.P.C. was registered against the respondent. Thereafter, the victim was sent to the hospital where his MLC report was prepared according to which, some contusions 3''x3'' cm was found on the right arm of such victim/complainant as the injury was caused by the teeth. So on completion of the investigation, the respondent was charge-sheeted for the offence of Section 324 of I.P.C.

On evaluation of the charge-sheet, a charge of the aforesaid Section was framed against the respondent. He abjured the guilt on which the trial was held in which as many as five prosecution witnesses including victim Dhannulal, his parents mother and father were examined. On appreciation of the same, the respondent was acquitted from the alleged charge on which the State has come to this Court with the petition for grant of Leave to Appeal against such acquittal and same was allowed and this matter has been registered as Criminal Appeal.

After taking me through the record of the trial Court by referring the deposition of the victim as well as his parents and the exhibited papers of the charge-sheet learned Panel Lawyer said that, on appreciation of the evidence specially in view of the medical evidence in which corresponding injuries as stated by the victim in his deposition has been found on preparation of the MLC report, the trial Court ought to have convicted the respondent for the alleged charge as apparently the teeth injury was found on the arm of the respondent/victim Dhannulal. In response of some query of the Court he fairly submitted that the story putforth by the victim and her parents have not been supported by any independent source of the evidence and it is also apparent that there was previous enmity between families of the victim and the respondent. With the aforesaid submissions, he prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and to hold the conviction against the respondent for the offence of Section 324 of I.P.C. by allowing this appeal.

The aforesaid prayer is opposed by the counsel of the respondent saying that in view of the factum regarding earlier enmity between the parties unless the deposition of the victim and his parents are supported by any independent evidence, the respondent could not have been convicted and in such premises, the trial Court has not committed any error in extending acquittal to the respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal does not require any interference at this stage. He further argued that it is a settled principle of law that where on appreciation of the evidence if two views are possible then out of them, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted and if the same has been adopted by the trial Court then for replacing the another view, the impugned judgment could not be interfered and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view their arguments I have carefully gone through the record of the trial Court along with the impugned judgment.

It is apparent from the record that on the date of the incident some quarrel took place between victim and the respondent, on account of which some beating was also happened between them, in which the respondent caused some injury on the forearm of the victim by his teeth, but on perusing the nature of the injury from the MLC report (Ex. P.1) as well as the deposition of the Doctor M.P. Tamrakar (PW-1), in which he categorically stated that the victim sustained the contusion of 3''x3'' cm on upper side of forearm, the same does not appear to be caused by the teeth, hence the nature of such injury could not be said to be ''incised wound'', the same could be treated to be ''contusion'' only. So firstly, on this ground the story put forth by the victim appears to be doubtful.

Besides this, it has been proved on the record that there was previous enmity between the family of the victim and the respondent and on account of that, the alleged quarrel was happened. It is settled principle that where there is serious animus between the parties, then the prosecution story put forth by the interested witnesses like victim and their parents, could not be relied on to hold the conviction unless the same is supported by any independent source of the evidence. Such principle was laid down by the apex Court long before in the matter of Bir Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, in which it was held as under:-

Where all the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution had serious animus against the accused and were interested in implicating the accused and neither independent witnesses were examined nor any reasonable explanation was given by the prosecution, the Court would be justified in drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution.

In view of the aforesaid, in the lack of any supporting evidence from the independent source, the impugned judgment acquitting the respondent does not require any interference at this stage.

Apart the above, it is also settled proposition of law that on appreciation of the evidence if two contrary views are possible, then the view favourable to the accused should be adopted and on examining the case at hand, it appears that on appreciation of the evidence the trial Court has adopted the view which was favourable to the respondent/accused which could not be interfered only for replacing the another view of conviction against the respondent. My aforesaid view is based on the principle laid down by the Hon''ble apex Court long before in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Sucha Singh and Others, so in such premises, the approach of the trial Court extending acquittal to the respondent do not require any interference by allowing this appeal. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I have not found any merit in the present appeal resultantly, by affirming the impugned judgment of acquittal of the respondent, the same is hereby dismissed.