STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. KESHOVRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the State being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4.1.1994 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Betul in Criminal Case No.2371/1986, whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted from the charge of offence under Section 326 of the IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that the complainant Bhimrao and the respondent Keshorao are relatives. The complainant settled the marriage of sister of the respondent with Sheshrao at village Bheempur, Doldhana District Betul. On 2nd June, 1986, for celebrating the ring ceremony, the complainant Bhimrao and the respondent/accused came to the village Umari to the house of Nilamber, who is brother of the complainant Bhimrao. In the intervening night of 1st & 2nd June, 1986, the complainant and the respondent were sleeping side by side in the courtyard (Aangan). Suddenly, the respondent assaulted Bhimrao with a knife, caused injuries on his neck and back. The complainant Bhimrao raised hue and cry and caught hold of the respondent. After hearing the noise of Bhimrao, Shivcharan came to the spot. He saw that the respondent held a knife in his hand, Bhimrao who was griping with the respondent. Shivcharan snatched the knife from the respondent. After hearing the voice, so many persons namely Tenya, Mahadeo, Anandrao and Nilamber assembled at the scene of occurrence. It was stated by Bhimrao to them that the respondent assaulted him with a knife on his stomach, chest and neck. On the report of Shivcharan, Police Station Athner District Betul registered a case under Section 307 of the IPC against the respondent. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the competent Court. After committal the case, trial was conduced by the learned trial Court.

(3.) In the impugned judgment, learned trial Court found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not reliable and trustworthy. The respondent had no motive to commit the offence against the complainant. However, knife was seized from the possession of respondent, but no blood stain was found on the seized article. After considering the weakness of prosecution case, learned trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt.