IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR f'A Cr. M. P. No. yu I /2010. ACQUITTAL APPEAL No. /2010. ','rf-i .-6^ APPELLANTS 1. Shiv Prasad, S/o. Mohar Sai, aged about 36 years, ^•/;^"' ^- .^•f^' ,^*' .k\v0-:^ ^'^g\>'° ft^-' 2. Prem Sai, S/o. Nohar Sai, aged about 42 years, Both are resident of Village Sakhauli, Police Station Ambikapur, at present P. S. Darima, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT Asa Beetan, S/o. Jang Sai, aged about 65 years, Resident of Village Sakhauli, Police Station Darima, Surguja (C. G.). APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT OF ACQUITTAL IN COMPLAINT CASE UNDER SECTION 378 (4) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE '•^. %_ AT Singie Banch : Hon'bie Mr. Justic®Prltiriker" Dlwake?' :010 i-rc Shiv Prasad & anol'hsr- Versus R?B€?'i'ffyi s/ o ana Soi Mr. Shravan Agrawal, counss! for the appiicant. N rux & CTAL "r^t A^'&S ,^. PPf-At THE JUD6AAENT OF ACQUITTAL IN COMPLAIN ER SECT10N 378 OF CODE OF n, '.9 13 m^ -^jft^ ^'^••Si Heord OF! admission. 'he preser't petition fiied under Ssction 378 (4) of ths Code of Criminai Procedure is d'rected against the impugned judgment and orde" dsted 6.2.2010 passsd by Judlcial AAagistrate Flrst Ciass Ambikapur, Sarguja in Crlmina! Case No.450/2006 whersby acquitting the respondent in a complaint case, under Sectio"s 419 <& 420 of the Indian Pena! Code. 2. Brief facts of the casa are that on 12-6.1993 a comp!aint co.se was filed by the appeSlants against the respondent Beetsr; and five other accused psrsons aiiegin; that one Pancham was the cousin b"other of the father of ths compiainants and was ths owne" ot severa letaiis wsre aiven in DcrcaraDh 1 of ths cornciaint. It is ajieged 'ad expired and hat about 4-5 years back, the said Pancham land of which >efore that hs was ssrlousjy sick and was rsot In o positjon to move and taking advaritage of the same, ths accused/respondent' Beetan wlth the heip of other accused Dersons. by DreDarina a foroed ssttlement ietter qot recorded 'WWWS^ff^S^S^^S ;:€\ i J.i1 '•^ 'v. .-f: '^SS^sS^'' his name in a!! the "evenue records. Compidncnts have ai'eged that when they came to know about ths said act of Beetan on 28.10.1991 they informed the pojice for taking necessary action against the accuse.d persons, however, ir' the "eport submitted by the poiics, it has been mentioned that by mistoks father's nams of the "espondent No. 1 was "scorded as Jang Sai and there is nothing agdnst him. Accor'dlng to the complainants, by playing frcud and foraery respondents No. 1 & 2 aot recor'ded their names on the !ond of Pancham and the other accused Dersons hav®hslDed them. 3. Counse! for the apps!iarits/co"'p!a;na"ts submits thot o" 6.12.1996 compiaint aqo.inst the proposed accused No. 3 to 6 was dismissed whereas on 11-5.2007 proposed accused No. 2 Ujitram was discharged. He submits +hat on the basis of evidence adduced by the comp'ainants, the court beiow ought to h.avs 'conyict-sd the re'spon.dent/accused. 4. In support of its case, compjainant has examined himself, Hajari Lal (CW-1) & Prem Sai (CW-2). Apart from this, witnes.s nameiy Vishnu Prasad (&W-1) has also been examinea by the respondent/accused. 5. I have heard counsei for the. appellants/coiTtpisi nerused the material available on record. :ii^.flr!t ny}{ ^^! i*. 6. From the evidence of the parties, i+ 's cleor that r'va! con+entions have been made to the effect that as to whe.ther the respondent is a son of Pancham or is son of Jangsc.i. Evidence further reflects that paternity of ths respondent/accused is.disputed. Evidencs also rsfiects that mutatiors of the iand wqs done during the iife time of the r~ •...-x^ '^.£^-1^1" deceased Pancham and this was done on the basi-s of gift deed. Considering thi.s fact, the court betow was of the view that matter appears to be of a ciyil nature ond th.e same co" only be decided by the Competent Civi! Court and by hoiding this, the court beiow has acquitted the r'espondent/accused under Section 419 &. 420 of the.Indian Penal Code by giving benefit of doubt. 7. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the evidence ovaiiable on record and be.ing ver/ much conscious of the exlsting legal position that in a co.se. against acquitta! if two views are poss'ble on the basis of the evidence ied by th.s prosecution a"d the trial Court taking one view favourabjs to the accused, reversion of the findings of acquitta! by the appeliate Court taking the other possib's view into consideration, is not permissibie m iaw, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acqultting th-s respondent/ accused of ths offence punishable under Sectlons 419 <& 420 of the Indian Penai Code, is just and proper o"d does not call for any interference by this Court. For the reasons CTforementioned, there is "o merit i" the present case and the so.me is dismissed accordin9Jy. Sd/- Judge