STATE OF M.P. Vs. GUJRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State, aggrieved by the judgment dated 1.11.1985, rendered by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge; Dhar in Sessions Trial No. 79/85, recording acquittal of the accused respondents of the charges punishable under sections 302/34, 325/34 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has preferred this appeal.

(2.) ADUMBRATED in brief the prosecution case at the trial was that since about a year before the date of incident i.e. 17.12.1984 there was some dispute between Ditiya, the husband of Kelubai (P.W. 8) and the accused -respondents relating the agricultural land situate in village Hanumantaiya. On 17.12.1984, during day time, Nanuram, son of Kelubai, Gujra and Munna were grazing cattle. This Gujra is different person than the one accused in this case bearing the same name. At the place of grazing the cattle, the respondents armed with various weapons such as Axe, Tangiya and bowand arrow came there. The respondent Gujra assaulted Munna by means of bow and arrow and as a result of which Munna fled away. Gujra and his brother Nanuram returned home. Nanuram narrated the incident to his mother Kelubai (P.W. 8). Kelubai, thereafter, demanded to know from Gujra (respondent) as to why he had assaulted Gujra (another person as stated above). On this Mohan another respondent stated that she be killed. Gujra, thereafter, inflicted the injuries on Kelubai by means of bow and arrow hitting her on the stomach. Kelubai took out this arrow but Gujra inflicted the injury on Kelubai by means of a Tangiya hitting her on the left forearm. Kelubai the mother -in -law of Kelubai came to save Kelubai, but the respondent Mohan assaulted her by means of an axe. Thereafter Sunderbai, the deceased intervened to save her, but she was assaulted by Mohan by axe. Sunderbai fell down to the ground. Thereafter, the respondents fled away. The incident was witnessed by Avantibai (P.W. 1), Narsingh (P.W.2) and Sumanbai (P.W. 5). An attempt was made to take Sunderbai in a bullock -cart to the Police Station, but she collapsed in the way. Kelubai lodged the report to the Police which is marked in this case as Ex. P/11. Kelubai was medically examined by Dr. Y.K. Joshi (P.W. 9). The injury report is Ex. P/14. The X -Ray report in respect of Kelubai was given by Dr. V.D. Katarkar (P.W. 10). Kallubai was medically examined. The injury report is marked in this case as Ex. P/15. The postmortem as regards Sunderbai was performed by Dr G.S. Gupta (P.W. 12). The postmortem report is Ex. P/24. The trace map was prepared by Patwari Parmanand (P.W. 4) which is marked in this case as Ex. P/3. Spot, map was prepared which is marked as Ex. P/10 in this case. The medical report of Munna is Ex. P/22. The alleged weapons of assault were seized pursuant to information and submitted for Chemical Examination. The report of the Chemical Examiner is dated 27.4.1985. On completion of investigation, the charge -sheet was filed in the Court. The appellants were charged under sections 302/34, 325/34 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty. On trial, they were acquitted of all the charges as noted above.

(3.) SHRI Kutumbale vehemently criticised the approach of the trial Court and urged that the verdict is not on firm foundation. He submitted that the minor contradictions and inconsistencies have been overmagnified and blown out of proportion. He particularly drew our attention to the statement of P.W. 8 Kelubai, the maker of the First Information Report (Ex. P/11) and submitted that her testimony has not been properly evaluated and on proper consideration, this could that the balance in favour of the appellant. He, therefore submitted that the accused -respondents deserves be convicted of the charges leveled against them. On the other hand Shri Maheshwari submitted that the evidence has been properly appreciated and there is no valid and sufficient ground to interfere in this appeal against acquittal. He submitted that the accused -respondents were falsely implicated at the behest of one Mitthu Seth, arch rival of the accused -respondents due to political differences and as such, the trial Court was correct in its assessment that the prosecution had failed to prove the case. As regards the statement of P.W. 8 Kelubai, he submitted that her testimony was extremely artificial and not dependable and as such, could not be acted upon. He submitted that even if another view on the evidence was possible, then also this Court should not interfere in this appeal. According to his, the investigating agency was mixed up with the aforesaid Mitthu Seth and went out of its way to oblige him and to harm the accused persons. Therefore, he urged that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.