^'^^^Sg^^^s^®^^^; s "•"S'l j^^^^\/^Jh^/p^r^r^-^*v>?^lfrVd^V ^^e>7?o''se^;ama^^ IN.THI ^COURT OF JUBICBTURE M" 3ftBftLPUR, CrA No. OF 2000 The State of Madhya Pradesh VERSUS 1. Dwarikaprasad, Agedabout 27 years S/o Siyaram 2. Santpsh, Aged about 22 years S/o Siyacam ' ' 3. Jagbai, Aged about 45 years W/o Slyaram All residents of vlllage Adbhar Police Station Malkharoda Distcict Oanjglr Champa, MP APPLICM'ION FOR GRANT OF LESVE TO SPPESL UNDER'SEeTtONKg| 37i(3) AND HEMO OF. APFEAL UNDER SECTION 378(1-^ OF'.THE»S "CODE 9F CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 . . :''- i'^i^.^yS^ ^^^^1 HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPOR Cr-M.P.NO. 551/2010 State of Chhattisgarh versus Ehvanka Prasad & Others Shri Praveen Das, Dy. G.A. for fhe State/petitioner. IJI^ :,:^<^r .^7" 3TSW fe.MEMO OF APPEAL.UNDER ^CTSON 378ili_OF_'mi; The present petition filed under Section 378(3) ofthe Cr.P.C..is directed aaainst tlie inipugned iudenieB.t aad order dated 28.01.2000 ^^-.r-^^ ^^ pass.ed 6y yie Judicisl Ma^istrate Fii-st CIass, Sakti ia Cr. Case No. 461/97 acquitting the respondenfs/'accused under Sections 294, 323, 451 & 323/34 ofthe IPC. ^' . • 2. Brieftacts offhe case arc that on 15.2.96 fhe respondents are aileged to faave abused fhe complainaut Firtj.a Bai (P.W.-l). It is furfher alleged fhatwhen the husbaiid ofthe coinplainaQt intervened he too was abused and assaulted. The nirfh.er alleeation is ftiat tlie respondents have forcibly entered the Iiouse of the complainaat and assaulted her. 3. FroBi the iudgiaent it appears fha;t the prosecution has exauiuied 7 witnesses. Statement of the accused/resuondents were also retorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they Have denied the charaes alleged aeainst them and oleaded their iniiocence and laise iiTtplication in the case. . 4, Tbough fhe record of the Court below was sumrnoned by fbis Court to which iaformation has been sent bv the trial Court that the •., record has already been destroyed and tlierefore this Court proceeds to decide the present case inerely on the basis ofjudgment filed by fhe State coun.sel. 5. Froni the judgm.ent it appears fhat the trial Court has acquitted the aceused/respondents of the oi'fence as mentioned above. Hence, the present &ppeal. 6. Contention of Shri Das, is that on the basis of the evidence and material available on record. the Court below has erred in law in acquitting the acc.used/respondents. He further submits that the Court below has taken a very lenient view while passing the impugned judgment. He submits that despite the statement of the complainant 85 her husband,,'the Court below, by disbelieving the same has acquitted the respondents/accused, 7. From the judgment, it is apparent that the complainant has not ev<Si stated as to what abuses were hurled to her. However, it appears from the e^dence of the complainant and her husband tbat they have even failSi^to prove the piace^ of incident and that the independent witnesses have not fullysupported-the prosecution case. There appears to be material contradictxons in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, ^ • • ,s ' • '..."• 8, 'Considering all these facts and aspects of the case, the Court.below has arrived to a conclusion ofacquitting the accused/respondent, 9. I find no1 reason to interfere in the judgment of acquittal, particulariy the view taken by the court beiow is one of the possible view, It is.a settled posifion of law in reiation to cases against acqyittai, in a petition against acquittal if tawo views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the triai Court taldng one view fayoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the apoeliate Court taking the other plausible view into consideratiQn is not pennissibie in law, This Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/accused of the offenGe as alieged is just and proper, Accordingiy, the ieave as sought for by the appUcant/Sta.te for registration pf appeal against the judgmer.t of acquittal is hereby refused. Pritinker Diwaker Judge