State of Madhya Pradesh vs Jaike & Others

(1) The State has preferred the present appeal against the respondents relating to judgment dated 25/02/2012, passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Trial Nos.382/2009 and 67/2010, whereby all the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of Sections 148, 302/149, 307 or 307/149 (seven counts) of IPC .

(2) Prosecution''s case, in short, is that in the evening of 29/06/2009 Shyam (PW-10) and his wife Babla went to the house of Dilip and Vinod to hire a tractor for ploughing a field. After some time, a quarrel took place for payment of rent relating to tractor. Respondent- Manna visited the field by a jeep and respondents - Jaike and Janak Singh went to the spot with a tractor. At about 8:00 pm, the respondents assaulted various persons by sword, lathi, luhangi, farsa and other weapons. Shyam (PW-10) and deceased- Dilip tried to

escape towards the Village Khejda.Then, respondent Manna by driving the jeep rushed over the jeep upon the deceased Dilip causing his death. When various villagers went to the spot, they found Shyam and Mangilal to be injured and Dilip to be dead. Babla, the wife of the deceased, gave an intimation at Police Station Dharnavada and, therefore, the case was registered. Various injured persons were sent for their medico-legal examination and the dead body of deceased- Dilip was sent for postmortem. Dr. SK Jain (PW1) on 30/06/2009 performed the postmortem on the body of deceased- Dilip and gave a report Ex.P-1. According to him, there were two injuries found on the body of deceased Dilip; one was a contusion on right buttock and another was contusion on left back. 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th ribs were found broken and both lungs were congested. Liver was found torn. Membrane over intestine was bleeding. According to Dr. Jain, the deceased- Dilip died due to aforesaid injuries. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.

(3) The respondents abjured their guilt. They did not lead any defence evidence.

(4) The trial Court after considering the prosecution evidence acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid charges.

(5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(6) In the present case, it is proved by Dr. SK Jain (PW-1) that deceased Dilip died due to injuries caused to him on his right buttock and left back. Various ribs were found broken and both the lungs were found congested. In his abdominal cavity, huge blood was found and membrane of intestine was also bleeding. His liver was found torn and he died due to aforesaid injuries. According to Dr. SK Jain, such injuries

were sufficient to cause death of the deceased but in the cross-examination, he has accepted that such injuries could be caused in the tractor accident. In the present case, it is alleged against respondent Manna that he rushed over the jeep on the deceased- Dilip and, therefore, he died. It was for the prosecution to prove as to whether such injuries were caused due to an accident or caused with intention.

(7) In the present case, various injured witnesses for whom the charge under Section 307 of IPC was framed, have turned hostile. Rakesh (PW-6), Suresh (PW-8), Shyam (PW-10),Mangal (PW-12), Mangilal (PW-23), Sanjay (PW24) and Rai Singh (PW-26) did not state anything against the respondents. Rakesh (PW6) has stated in his examination- in-chief that since the tractor was turned turtle various persons were injured. Suresh (PW-8) has stated that since the tractor was taken on medh it was turned turtle. No witness has stated that the respondents had assaulted any of the victims for which charge under Section 307 of IPC (seven counts) was framed. Hence, though various injured persons have sustained the injuries but it was not proved beyond doubt that any of the respondents had tried to kill them or attempted to commit murder. Under these circumstances, where there is no ocular evidence against the respondents it could not be said positively that the respondents had attempted to commit murder against seven persons and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from seven count charges of Section 307 or 307/149 of IPC

(8) Similarly, none of the eye-witnesses has stated that respondent Manna rushed over the jeep on the deceased Dilip. On the other hand, they have stated that due to tractor

accident the deceased Dilip had died. Only Vinod (PW-3) brother of deceased Dilip has stated that Dilip was killed by driving a jeep and jeep had not only dashed with the deceased Dilip but rushed over upon his body. However, his evidence is not duly supported by the medical evidence. Dr. SK Jain (PW1) found only two injuries to the deceased Dilip and the same were contusions. No Tyre mark was found on the body of deceased Dilip so that it can be said that the jeep was rushed over on the body of the deceased. Since the independent and injured witnesses did not support the prosecution''s story, the evidence given by Vinod (PW-3) cannot be accepted and, therefore, it was not proved beyond doubt that respondent- Manna rushed over the jeep on the deceased Dilip and killed him. The trial Court has rightly acquitted respondent- Manna from the charge of Section 302 of IPC. There was no overt act of other respondents so that their common intention could be presumed with respondent- Manna and hence, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the remaining respondents from the charge of Section 302 / 149 of IPC.

(9) On the basis of aforesaid discussion, it would be apparent that no overt act of the respondents is established to show that they constituted any unlawful assembly and when it is not proved beyond doubt that any unlawful assembly was constituted then none of the accused can be convicted for the offence either under Section 148 or 147 of IPC . The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charge of Section 148 of IPC.

(10) On the basis of aforesaid discussion, there is no sufficient evidence adduced by the prosecution so that the respondents could be convicted of aforesaid offences. On

the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, appeal filed by the State cannot be accepted. There is no reason to make any interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 25/02/2012, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Guna. Under these circumstances, appeal filed by the State, is hereby dismissed.

(11) Since the respondents are on bail, their presence is no more required and, therefore, their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Respondent No.3 -Janak Singh be sent back to the jail concerned by the same escort with a direction that at present he is not required in the present appeal.

(12) A copy of the judgment be sent to the Court below for information.