HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon Mr Justice Prltmker Dlwaker) AcqUIttal Appeal 48/ 2009 ' ’ a ‘V State of Chhattlsg ‘ APPELLANT VERSUS. I ‘ ’1» ‘. Shn rawn Das Dy A for the appellant/State Shrl Rajesh Tlwan counsel for the respondents v 1 PPEAL UNDER SECTI 8(1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL " ORDER 2 (o3 12 2009) his-appeal Is directed against the Impugned judgment dated 2005 passed by JudIClat Magistrate First Class Jashpur In» ‘ nal Case No 321/2004 acqulttlng the respondents/accused ofthe?“ off’ nce under section 325/34 ofthe Indian Penal Code s ,f the case are that a written report was made on d based on that an entry was made m the Rajnamcha e ef ct that on 1102004 when Bhlmoram — the: complaln ntv-was 0mg to the house of his daughters namely Durpatl‘i' t . " '- ' ' dravan started ' accused persons e had gone to the house of the complainant and assaulted him and his ' Wife Sumati lt is alleged that on account of the assault Sumati (PW 2) d fracture on her right wrist On the baSIs of this entry,. investigation was done and crime number 110/2004 was registered for; the offence under’ sectron 325/34 IPC lt is relevant to note here that 'neither th” ' Rajnamcha Sanha nor the FIR have been exhibited in the . Court below during tria 5 l ,2 n i the offenc ud f Court below .3.“ Counsel for the appellant/State submits that there was ampe re 0rd o conVIct the respondents/accused for io 325/3 of the Indian Penal Code but the: mitte a serious error in ignoring the same and, .eVidence availab h ner .thereb awarding acqwttal in favour of the respondents y P i A O 7 T 29 I t n h han and Narowatl on the way respondent/accused fighting With him and thereafter in the evening all e ?* ' . l ‘2‘ Prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the respondents/accused were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminai Procedure in which they denied the charges Ieveiled against them and pleaded false implication in the case. 4. 5‘ Perusal of the evidence available on record shows that Sumati (PW-2) has stated in her evidence that she was assaulted by the accused persons as a result of which she sustained fracture on her right wrist. She,was medically examined by Dr. (Smt.) V. Bakhla (PW-8) on the same day and she had referred her to X-ray vide Ex. P-3. On 9.10.2004 X-ray was done and it was revealed that Sumati (PW-2) had suffered fracture of right ulna bone and report to this effect is Ex. P—4. Sumati (PW-2) has further stated in her court statement that the respondents/accused had twisted her right hand and pressed her ' neck as a result of which she sustained injury, but she has not stated anything like this in her case diary statement. Likewise, several other allegations which have been made by this witness in the Court are not the part of the diary statement. Further, she has not stated before the police that Bhimoram and Narowati were also assaulted whereas in the _-C-ourt statement she has alleged that they both were also brutally assaulted. Though it has been stated by Sumati (PW—2) and Bhimoram that number of injuries were caused to Bhimoram and Narowati and they were also examined by the doctor, but no such injury report has been submitted by the prosecution along with its case Durpati Bai (PW 3) has stated that she too was assaulted by the accused Kunwar Sal but her statement has not been supported by any medical report This Witness has disclosed the name of her husband as Mahesh m her court statement whereas on further examination she has stated that ’she Is not married Narowati (PW 4) has also stated that she was ’fl'saulted but her statement also has not been supported by any edical report Gopal (PW-5) has admitted the fact that there was. ome dispute between the parties but apart from this he has not stated anything. ln the statements of Bhuneshwar Ram (PW 6) and Lachhanram (PW-7) there are material contradictions and omissmns. as m s ~3‘ Bhuneshwar (PW—6) has also admitted the fact that there was previous enmity between the parties on account of some land dispute. Seizure witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution. This apart, Investigating Officer himself has stated in his evidence that the statements of the witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded one month after the incident. The trial Court after considering the entire material available on record has recorded a finding that as the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused persons and thus acquitted them of the charges levelled against them. 6. Thus after hearing counsel for the applicant/State and considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the Court below, and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/accused of the offences under section 325/34 IPC, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is hereby dismissed.