STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. SATYABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has filed this appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondents for offences u/ Ss. 324 / 34 and 323 / 34,I.P.C.

(2.) The prosecution story in brief was that on 16-5-80 at about 12-30 p.m. at village Sirmour police station Baikunthpur district Rewa M.P, the three respondents came and started abusing one Dashrath (PW-7), who had come to the house of his brother-in-law Jageshwar (PW-1). Dashrath (PW-7) had earlier refused to give bail for respondent Rajnish at Shahdol, where the latter had got arrested for throwing acid on one person. This was the grouse, which the respondents entertained against Dashrath. The house owner Jageshwar (PW-1) came out and protested why the respondents were abusing his brother-in-law Dashrath. It is said that thereupon all the three respondents by means of iron rod, cycle chain and Lathi beat Jageshwar. When the parents of Jageshwar named Badriprasad (PW-2) and Mst. Ram Mani (PW-3) came to intervene, they too were assaulted by the respondents. Respondent No. 3 Rajnish is son of respondent No. 1 Satyabhan, while respondent No. 2 Kanhaiyalal is also related to them, who lives with them in the same house. On these allegations the respondents were charged with having committed offences u/Ss. 324/34 and 323/34, IPC. After recording the entire evidence, the learned Magistrate by judgment dated 15-1-1985 acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them. Aggrieved by that acquittal, the State has filed this appeal.

(3.) The learned Magistrate in his judgment held that Jageshwar (PW-1) as also his parents Badriprasad (PW-2) and Mst. Ram Mani (PW-3) were in fact assaulted and had received injuries. He, however, held that these three injured persons, who supported the prosecution story were closely related and hence interested witnesses. Independent witnesses Awadh Sharan (PW-4), Rampratap (PW-5) and Ramjiyawan (PW-8), who were neighbours, had not supported the prosecution story and had stated that they had not seen the quarrel. The FIR could not be proved by the prosecution. The weapons of the offences; namely, iron rod, cycle chain and lathi could not also be seized by the police. On these grounds the learned Magistrate held that it was not established that the respondents were the assailants who caused the injuries in question. It is plain that the judgment of the trial Court suffered from serious infirmities in as much as prosecution evidence of the victims of assault was rejected on flimsy and untenable grounds. The evaluation of prosecution evidence suffered from perversity and if interference is not made, it will result in failure of justice.