STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. VIKRAM NANURAM BHEEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Miscellaneous Criminal Case leave to file appeal is sought under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 30/8/2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate ClassI, District Dhar in Criminal Case No.1806/2011 acquitting the accused respondents from offence under Sections 294, 323/34 506II of the IPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated; the facts of the prosecution case are that on 13/7/2011 at 6.00 p.m. in the evening complainant Suman Bai was going to call her son Golu from the village when accused Girdhari, Galiya and Vikram abused her by calling her a 'dakni' (witch) and that she has eating the people. When she enquired as to whom she had eaten; at that time the accused abused her in filthy language. When she asked him not to use such bad words accused Girdhari pelted stones at her which caused injury on her waist and below the left eye. Accused Vikram and Galiya slapped her and assaulted by kicks and fists. Thereafter the accused persons ran away and while leaving the spot they asked her not to come in front of them otherwise they would kill her. The incident was witnessed by her son Sunil. The complainant reported the matter on the next day i.e. on 14/7/2012 at police station Nalchha. Crime was registered at No.112/11 for offence under Sections 294, 323, 506/34 of the IPC. The investigation was launched and the accused persons were arrested and the offence was registered against the accused and they were duly committed to their trial. The accused abjured their guilt and they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the matter. However, the trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused from the offence. Being aggrieved, the applicant/State has filed the present application for grant of leave to file appeal.

(3.) COUNSEL for the applicant/State has urged the fact that there was ample evidence available on record, despite which the trial Court had erred in acquitting the respondents/accused. Counsel submitted that the trial Court had ignored the testimony of P.W.1 complainant Suman Bai, P.W. 2 Golu and P.W.3 Sunil. In the testimony of P.W.4 Dr. Jaypal Thakur, Primary Health Center, Nalchha, he has stated that the complainant had a lacerated wound 1' x 1/4 'on the left eye and injury No.2 was a swelling 2' x 1' below the left eye. Similarly on the chest there was swelling 1 ' and abrasion on the back on the scapula there was swelling 1' x 1' and the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object, however, the injury were simple in nature. And under these circumstances there was no need to disbelieve the evidence. Hence, Counsel prayed that the application for leave to file appeal be allowed.