STATE OF M P Vs. KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia, in Criminal Appeal No. 780/94 on 25.4.1996, acquitting the respondent from charge under section 354, " 294, 323 and 325/34 of IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 18.3.1993, in the morning, at about 9.30 a.m. when complainant Panabai alongwith her sister-in-law Maya had gone to reap the crop at her field, accused respondents namely Balkishan, Ramkishan, Lal Singh and Sunder Singh went there. Ladies of the family of the accused persons also reached there. Accused persons objected reaping of the crop by the complainant and snatched her sickel. Accused Chenu assaulted her by a hockey on her right hand, Balkishan assaulted by lathi, Ramkishan inflicted injuries by luhangi and accused Sunder assaulted her by fists and kicks. It is said that accused Sunder and Balkishan hurled filthy abuses. When her sister-in-hew came to rescue her, accused Ramkishan inflicted a blow by the luhangi on her head. It is also alleged that the accused persons with the intention of outraging the modesty of the complainant torn her Sari and Saya. Panabai alongwith her husband's younger brother Jairam went to police station Badoni and lodged the report. Police registered the case under section 323, 294 and 354/34 of IPC against the accused persons. Panabai and Maya were sent for medical examination. Dr. A.K. Gupta examined them. Vide medical examination report Ex. P-11, Panabai was found to have suffered one contusion on right forearm just above wrist, one lacerated wound on parietal region and one contusion on right hand. All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. She was referred for X-ray examination of injury No. 1. Mayadevi was found to have suffered one contusion on head and one lacerated wound on right thumb. Both the injuries were simple in nature. PW 14 Dr. R.C. Chakrawarthy had conducted the X-ray examination of the right wrist of injured Panabai and vide X-ray report (Ex. P-14) found a fracture of radius bone of right wrist. After completing investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the case was taken up for trial.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the State, Shri Anil Bansal, P.L. has contended that the trial Court had committed illegality in acquitting the respondents. He submitted that there was sufficient evidence on record to prove the charges against the accused-respondents. The learned trial Court has erroneously disbelieved the evidence of injured witnesses though it was corroborated by the medical evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents accused, Shri Brajesh Sharma contended that the evidence of injured witnesses and other eye-witnesses suffers with discrepancies and material contradictions. The view taken by the trial Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or unjust. Hence, the appeal filed by the State against the impugned judgment deserves to be dismissed.