Jagdish Vs. State of
M.P.  INSC 563 (19 March 2009)
JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1275 OF 2002 Jagdish ...Appellant(s) Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh ...Respondent(s) O R D E R Heard learned counsel for
The sole appellant,
along with accused, Dhiran, Ram Swarup, Prakash and Champa, were tried for the
charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for
short, `I.P.C.'], but were acquitted by the Trial Court.
Against the order of
acquittal, the State of Madhya Pradesh filed an appeal before the High Court,
which upheld the acquittal of other four accused persons, but reversed the same
in relation to the appellant and convicted him under Section 302 IPC and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence, this appeal by special
We have been taken
through the judgments rendered by the Trial Court and the High Court, apart
from the evidence of P.W.1 (Naktu), the informant, who was chowkidar of the
village as well as the evidence of three eye-witnesses, namely, P.W.2 (Lahori
Bai), P.W.3 (Bimla Bai) and P.W. 5 (Grisham Bai). Undisputedly, the informant,
before going to the Police Station for lodging first information report, met
the aforesaid witnesses but none of them disclosed the name ...2/- -2- of the
accused to him. As a result of this, the first information report was lodged
against unknown persons. The prosecution has failed to furnish any explanation
as to why the names of accused persons were not disclosed to P.W.1 when he
visited the residence of the deceased. The Trial Court, after taking into
consideration all relevant material, refused to place reliance upon the
evidence of the eye-witnesses and held that the prosecution has failed to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt.
acquitted all the accused including the appellant. The approach adopted by the
Trial Court for recording the order of acquittal was correct and findings
recorded by it did not suffer from any perversity, yet the High Court upset the
same qua the appellant by placing reliance upon the statements of the so-called
eye-witnesses. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the
appellate court can not interfere with the same. As the judgment of acquittal
rendered by the Trial Court cannot be said to be perversed, the High Court was
not justified in interfering with the same and convicting the appellant under
Section 302 IPC.
appeal is allowed, impugned judgment of the High Court, so far the same relates
to the appellant, is set aside and the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial
Court is restored.
The appellant, who is
on bail, is discharged from the liability of bail bonds.