2019 INSC 1034
                                  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                        State of Madhya Pradesh

                                                     Vs.

                                                 Amar Lal

                                          Crl.A.No.251 of 2010

                                (Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha,JJ.,)

                                                10.12.2019

                                              JUDGMENT

Navin Sinha,J.,

1. The appellant-State 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. PW-4 and PW-5 are the family members of
the deceased. latter is also an injured witness. The submission on behalf of the appellant
was that in view of the ocular evidence available with 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 PW-6, on the aforesaid ground was unjustified. PW-4 and PW-5
have not been doubted as eye-witnesses 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 PW-4 and PW-5. 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 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.

1  SpotLaw