The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Kanhai Wega

B.D. Rathi. J.

Warrant issued in pursuance of the order dated 20/6/13 has not been returned served or un-served. With consent of learned Government Advocate, the matter is heard finally.

This appeal has been preferred u/s 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), being aggrieved with the judgment dated 29/1/2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Sidhi in Sessions Trial No. 31/2002, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 302 or 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity "IPC").

Prosecution case, in brief, is that 12-13 days prior to 7/7/2001, owing to a verbal duel that had taken place between Shivkumar and his wife Basanti, her father Ghurau and one Kanhai came to Shivkumar''s house and after beating him, took Basanti to their Village Rampurva. Shivkumar also went after them to fetch his wife from their house. Three days thereafter, Shivkumar, having sustained multiple injuries of Lathi on his hand, leg and back, reached his home and informed his brother complainant Gulab Baiga that the said injuries had been inflicted by Ghurau and Kanhai. Initially, indigenous treatment was administered, but when on 18/7/01, condition of Shivkumar started deteriorating, complainant took him to a Private Practitioner, who looking to his condition refused to treat and, therefore, again methods of treatment prevalent in the village, had to be resorted to. Ultimately, on 19/7/01, Shivkumar succumbed to the injuries, thus sustained. First Information Report was lodged at Police Station Garhwa. After investigation, charge-sheet showing the respondent as absconding, was filed in respect of co-accused Ghurau, who later on was acquitted vide judgment dated 24/8/02. After arrest of the respondent, supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him, that forms the subject matter of the impugned judgment.

Learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, submitted that the trial Court had erred in appreciating the evidence and the judgment of acquittal deserved to be interfered with.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate, record of the trial Court was perused.

A bare perusal of the record would reveal that Radheshyam (PW2) and Rambadan (PW3) were cited as eye-witnesses. However, their evidence is full of material contradictions and omissions. Radheshyam had admitted in his cross-examination that he had not seen the incident and Rambadan had been declared hostile.

In the aforesaid premises, we agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.

It is well settled that the order of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the evidence on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.

Taking into consideration the reasons assigned in 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 substances, is, accordingly, dismissed. Warrant of arrest issued against the respondent in pursuance of the order dated 20/6/13, be recalled un-served. His bail bonds stand discharged. Proceedings regarding show-cause notice issued to the surety, stand dropped.