State of Madhya Pradesh vs Harishanker Pyasi

The present appeal under section 378(1) of Cr.P.C., has been preferred by the appellant/State against the judgment of acquittal passed by

Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Sessions Trial No.415/2001 dated 30.11.2001, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charge of

offence punishable under section 307 of IPC.

The prosecution story in brief is that respondent Harishanker Pyasi is the neighbour of complainant Bala Prasad. Due to previous enmity the

respondent had threatened complainant Bala Prasad to kill. On 29.10.2000 at around 6.45 pm in the evening complainant Bala Prasad was sitting

in front of his house with his wife Mathurabai. Seeing them, respondent came out of his house and fired a gun shot by country made piston on the

complainant. The complainant and his wife Mathurabai both sustained injuries on their hand by pellets. Complainant and his wife were taken to

District Hospital, Sagar for treatment. After examining them Doctor intimated the police. S.R.Vishwakarma, ASI (P.W.4) of Police Station Gopal

Ganj reached at District Hospital and recorded the report of complainant and initiated the investigation. The complainant and his wife Mathurabai

were medically examined. The pellets of gun shot were recovered from the spot. The statement of witnesses were recorded and after usual

investigation chargesheet has been submitted before the Court.

The trial Court framed charge of offence punishable under section 307 of IPC. The respondent abjured guilt and pleaded innocence. The

prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in its support, whereas the respondent has given no evidence in his defence. The trial Court on

appreciation of evidence found the charge of alleged offence not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondent.

It is argued by learned counsel for appellant/State that the complainant and his wife had categorically deposed that the respondent had inflicted

gun shot injuries on them by firing from country made pistol. This fact is duly corroborated by medical evidence. The trial Court on erroneous

appreciation of evidence had disbelieved the testimony of complainant and his wife and acquitted the respondent.

Heard arguments and perused the record.

It is not disputed that the respondent is living in neighbourhood of complainant. The complainant Bala Prasad (P.W.8) and his wife Mathurabai

(P.W.6) deposed that at the time of incident they were sitting in front of their house, then accused respondent fired a gun shot at them from the

terrace of his house. Hearing the sound of fire the neighbour Narayan and Urmilabai arrived on the spot. The complainant and his wife were taken

to District Hospital where complainant lodged a report Ex.P- 3.

The testimony of Bala Prasad and Mathurabai are not corroborated by the other eye witnesses, who arrived on the spot soon after the incident.

Narayan Singh (P.W.1), Urmilabai (P.W.2) deposed that after hearing the sound of fire them came on the scene of occurrence, they found

complainant Bala Prasad and his wife Mathurabai in injured condition. Bala Prasad and Mathurabai did not tell them who had fired at them. If the

complainant and his wife would have seen the respondent firing at them, then naturally they would have narrated this fact to the witnesses Narayan

Singh and Urmilabai. This creates doubt on the testimony of complainant and his wife, whether they have seen the assailant or not.

Bala Prasad and his wife Mathurabai had received gun shot injury is also doubtful. Dr.M.K.Choubey (P.W.10) who had examined Bala Prasad

and Mathurabai deposed that he had found punctured wound on the hand of Bala Prasad and Mathurabai, but he did not opine that these wounds

were caused by gun shot or not. Therefore from medical evidence also, it is not established that the complainant and his wife had received gun shot

injuries.

From the testimony of complainant and his wife it is found that there was previous enmity between the complainant and respondent. The

testimony of complainant and his wife are not corroborated by witnesses who arrived on the spot soon after the incident. The medical report also

not supports the gun shot injuries on the complainant and his wife.

In view of aforesaid infirmities the trial Court on proper appreciation of evidence has found the case of prosecution not proved beyond

reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the trial Court is neither perverse nor illegal. It is settled law that when two views are possible, then a

view in favour of accused should be adopted.

Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed.