In The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jablpur: CRA No.555OF 2019 Cause Title
In The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jablpur: CRA No.555OF 2019 Cause Title
Cause Title
APPELLANT : ABC
Versus
INDEX
Place: JABLPUR
Dated: ..............
Counsel for the Appellant
(LKJ)
Advocate
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
CRA No.555 OF 2019
Cause Title
APPELLANT : ABC
Versus
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
Place: ............
Dated: ...................
Counsel for the Appellant
LKJ
Advocate
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
APPELLANT: ABC
Versus
The APPELLANT named above begs to prefer the present the Appeal on the
following facts and grounds amongst others:
1. That, this is appeal arising out of the impugned judgment and order dated 25 th
January 2014 by learned ASJ, acquitting the non-appellants no. 1 and 2 of
charges of 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC.
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. That, during the investigation it came to light that one A of the same village
who had earlier kidnapped sister of the deceased and taken her to Pune which
was reported at the Police station ganj basoda .due to which A was arrested.
4. That, later A again took another sister of the deceased named y which was
again reported at the Police Station and A was again arrested. After the
incident A gave a mobile to sister and deceased found out about the mobile
phone while sister was talking to A. (deceased) assaulted his sister after finding
out about the mobile phone.
5. That, on finding out about the incident of deceased beating his sister A along
with non-appellants planned and killed the deceased using a Gamcha and
disposed the dead body of the deceased in the well to hide evidence of the
offence committed by them.
6. The trial court after perusing the chargesheet framed charges u/s 302 and 201
read with 34 of the IPC against the Non-Appellants.
7. The trial court after appreciating the evidence brought on record acquitted non-
appellants of the charges.
8. That, the judgement of the learned trial judge is perverse and against the law.
Hence, the present application for leave to appeal on the following grounds
amongst others is being filed.
GROUNDS
9. That, the impugned judgement is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances
of the case.
10. That, the mala-fide intentions of the accused can be inferred from the
prosecution story that the deceased complained about the co-accused twice and
thereby the co-accused A along with other co-accused persons i.e. non-
appellants committed the offence.
11. That, the trial court has erred by not adding an important eye witness of the
offence in the array of witnesses. Witness 1 even gave and Affidavit in the
court and a statement before the SDOP to the effect that he was at the time of
incident near the well where the non-appellants had dumped the dead body of
the deceased.
12. That, the trial court failed to see the evidence of the eye witness and was not
given due evidentiary value which ought to be given to an independent eye
witness.
13. That, the trial court ought to have given due opportunity to take into account
the statement given by witness 1 on affidavit against the non-appellants.
14. That, the trial court has not appreciated the evidence of prosecution and
defence witnesses in proper perspective.
15. That, the eye witness statements were also not presented in the final report due
to the influence of the accused persons and important piece of evidence was
ruled out using unlawful means.
16. That, the trial court has not taken into consideration the accused persons were
influential people of the locality and used undue influence to get the eye
witness out of the witness list.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased allow this
appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 25 th January and convict the non-
appellants with highest punishment for the grave offence committed by the non-
appellants in the interest of justice.
Place: JABALPUR
Dated: .........................
Counsel for the Appellant
(LKJ)
Advocate
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
CRA No.555 OF 2019
Cause Title
APPELLANT : ABC
Versus
AFFIDAVIT
I, ABC age 24,.District BHOPAL do hereby state the following on oath:
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
DEPONENT