THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs AMAR LAL
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
Judgment by: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000251-000251 / 2010
Diary number: 16450 / 2007
Advocates: SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI Vs
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.
The latter is also an injured witness. The submission on behalf of
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