THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH vs. AMAR LAL

Case Type: Criminal Appeal

Date of Judgment: 10-12-2019

Preview image for THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH vs. AMAR LAL

Full Judgment Text

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).251 OF 2010 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS AMAR LAL     ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J.  The appellant­State questions the acquittal of the respondent from the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. even while his conviction under Section 323 I.P.C. has been affirmed. 2. The assault on the deceased is said to have taken place on 27.03.1990 with the pointed end of wooden plough used for tilling the land.  PW­4 and PW­5 are the family members of the deceased. Signature Not Verified The latter is also an injured witness.  The submission on behalf of Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date: 2019.12.10 16:44:07 IST Reason: the appellant was that in view of the ocular evidence available with 1 regard   to   the   assault,   the   High   Court   erred   in   acquitting   the respondent on the reasoning that though the assault was with the sharp   end   of   the   plough   which   had   nails,   there   was   no corresponding injury as the nature of injury found could only be by blunt hard substance.  The acquittal, based on the mere opinion of the Doctor PW­6, on the aforesaid ground was unjustified.   PW­4 and PW­5 have not been doubted as eye­witnesses or that the latter was injured in the same incident. 3. Mr.   Anukul   Chandra   Pradhan,   learned   senior   counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that before acquittal he has already completed 14 years 6 months and 7 days of custody. 4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record as also the evidence of PW­4 and PW­5.  It appears from the records that the respondent as under trial had undergone   2   years   8   months   11   days   of   custody   and   after   his conviction on 24.01.1995 by the Sessions Judge he remained in 2 custody till 18.11.2006 completing 11 years 9 months 26 days. Thus, he has undergone total custody of 14 years 6 months 7 days. 5. In view of the aforesaid, we do not consider the present a fit case to interfere.  The appeal is therefore dismissed. .……………………….J.  (Ashok Bhushan) ………………………..J.    (Navin Sinha)   New Delhi, December 10, 2019 3