KESHAR @ KESHAV BADHAI Vs. SUMANT & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant -complainant has preferred this Cr. revision under section 397 of Cr.P.C. feeling aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 20.9.2005 passed by ASJ Damoh in ST no. 175 of 1998 whereby, acquitting respondents no. 1 to 7 from the charge under section 148, 294, 506 Part 2, 307, 323 and 324 read with section 34 of IPC. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 4.6.1998, at about 19.30 Hrs at village Raneh, complainant Keshar Badhai together with Akhilesh Tiwari, Mangal Singh, Prahlad Singh and Jageshwar Singh was sitting on the Chabutara of village Sarpanch Rammilan Tiwari, at that time, it is alleged that all the seven accused persons came there armed with different weapons and started beating to the complainant party and one of the accused namely Nanhe Singh also fired by means of country made pistol on the complainant. The First information report was lodged at the concerning police station. Injured persons were sent for medical examination, accused persons have been arrested. Weapons have been seized and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed.

(2.) THE respondents -accused abjured the guilt and their defense is of false implication in this case and it is further submitted that in the same incident, accused Umesh Singh, Raju and Ganesh Singh have also sustained injuries and for which, no explanation has been given. The learned trial court after due appreciation of entire evidence on record by impugned judgment dated 20.9.2005, held that the prosecution witness have concealed the truthfulness of the incident and also not given any explanation to the grievous injuries sustained to the accused party and on that basis, acquitted accused -respondents from the aforesaid charges. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, applicant has preferred this revision petition. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the trial court has wrongly appreciated the prosecution evidence. The prosecution has fully proved the fact that the respondent -accused are aggressor in this incident and had caused injury to the complainant party and thus, on the basis of wrong appreciation of evidence, the respondents no. 1 to 7 have been acquitted. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal.

(3.) IT is settled principle of law that the scope for hearing revision petition against the judgment of acquittal is very limited and the aggrieved party has to show that the judgment of acquittal is based on perversity or ignored the material evidence on record which leads in justice to the complainant. On perusal of the totality of the evidence, it is apparent that in the same incident, accused party sustained injury. It is also on record that the accused persons are returning from some function and on which basis, trial court came to the conclusion that this cannot be presumed that they were armed with weapons as alleged by the complainant during incident. Similarly, the injuries sustained to the accused party are being proved by the medical evidence. Dr. R.K. Shrivastava (PW 13) had clearly stated that the accused Umesh Singh sustained injury for which, proved report Ex. D/6. Similarly, the respondent -accused Raju S/o Nonelal sustained 8 injuries out of which, injury no. 1 is an incised wound on the parietal region for which, he also advised X -ray examination. Similarly, he also proved that the respondent -accused Ganesh S/o Natthu Singh also sustained injury on the back of which, presence of gun powder has also been proved and this injury may be caused due to some fire arm. Thus, looking to the nature of the injuries sustained to the respondents, it is bounden duty of the prosecution witnesses to explain grievous injury sustained to the respondents -accused. On perusal of total evidence on record, the prosecution witnesses have failed to explain about the injuries sustained to the respondents and in view of the aforesaid, the trial court has come to the conclusion that it is not proved that the respondents -accused being aggressors had caused any injury to the complainant party. This approach and appreciation of learned trial court does not appear to be perverse or illegal on which basis, in the revisional jurisdiction of this court, the finding of acquittal can be interfered with. Resultantly, revision preferred by the complainant being devoid of any merit is dismissed.