STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. KANCHHEDI @ PAPPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.10.2001 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Session Trial No. 138/2001 by which the accused persons have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1)(k) read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) As alleged by the prosecution, on 30.11.2000 the residents of village Udaipura heard noise of dacoity from the house of Nirmalchand Jain. Hearing the noise, Vinod Kumar Yadav, Rameshwar Yadav and various other persons of the village gathered around the house of Nirmalchand Jain. At that time, one of the accused persons shot fire in the air from inside the house and in return the villagers pelted stone over the thatched roof as a result 3-4 accused persons ran out from the house. The villagers ran behind them but they could not caught hold the persons. In the meantime, two other accused persons ran from the roof and while they were jumping on the thatched roof, the villagers caught hold them. They disclosed their names as Bahori and Kanchhedi. Both the accused persons were armed with desi katta (country-made fire arm). As alleged, the accused persons assaulted Kamleshrani w/o Nirmalchand Jain and her son Nitesh from the handle (backside) of the desi katta due to which they sustained injuries. The FIR was lodged and investigation was conducted by the police, the injured persons were sent to the hospital for treatment and accused persons were taken into custody. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed in the competent Court but as the case was triable in the Court of Sessions, it was committed before the Sessions Court where charges were framed against the accused persons and they were tried. The accused persons denied the charges and took the defence of false implication in the case.

(3.) Learned trial Court appreciated the evidence and after appraisal in paragraph 33, findings have been recorded that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not worthy to rely upon to prove the charges as levelled against the appellants. It was further stated that the recovery has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and in absence of the same, the accused persons were acquitted from the charge of Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the charge under Sections 25(1)(k) and 27 of the Arms Act is concerned, seizure of those articles were not proved by the independent witnesses. Therefore, the accused persons were acquitted from the said charges.