^•'Si'ai::'SS8)S» S^XSns i::iWW ;^ ?*B3'S.^I:@B:<33 S!.Q-R^ ®gi&ESfe'.6T8£.3"A&ftEPBfi.', •tlf '».'ir:.G;:..No.:'l-;2-:?-^;:fc"'. Gri.a»liial?^ppeal"No ,_L^_^ /1995 !B N •'r::i,::State;'of'M.P.'.^»6ugh;E.S!.PAtat»®:aBii. ,';::::B:JLs'bt.-.:Sarga,39 KRIJ18MMS:SWi'^53StE:s;'',;^ ^Ujsysiyswss^ iiM;«ii««,«.i,»«».W*«fl»«(i^i' •:' 161IK'!<-!l!G:KSSI^I"MKS"r?^el'l'l.sSE! :--^"'. ..: j •'.•LJ' :. .^:!1. .~'}i'".;vppeffl Sagar: i<Ta^,.S/o^ Stir'i'-MaTs.inghai?' ,::,Ja;in,:,ag®d'55:,,years.;;: ,1.'- :.T' .•:,;'V'li:;::i1^: :'.'/':.-2£'^i3sy:^ P:-':<7a^'..S/o:'®i'ea&ag:ar'j,'fa3 '..: •1.,. '"•,..::ag^|;-Z§;'yeaps,«.'''^.••.•^.^•:j..: 1 '• :'i/j.J.r: |..i i\^ ^y:l^^'^SfasKi'M®ar-j^,:S/&'|EJFe:asata?:lt ^;^: ^^?aa^i25,^ars^^'.'':. ^'^ •Jl:I(^/ -;:|:aia^&,|^%is^.^8G^^^B®|i.^guj'» Mlrhl%i38BRil@IS§SM8%i8S^,IS»K^:^l^ |a.3Ea®BK^^Iis-t^.'^Sargu:3a;5(H^^.^:.;: ^'N(?)?;^K. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 1084 of 1995 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS VERSUS StateofM.P. (now G.G.) Prem Sagar Jain and others. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava PL for the appellant/State. Shri C.J.K. Rao counsel for the respondents. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 377 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JUDGMENT (27.01.2010) Present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 4.1.1995 passed by Special Judge, Ambikapur (Sarguja) in Criminal CaseNo. 5/1994 acquitting the respondents/accused ofthe offences punishable under sections 294, 506 and 323 IPC and section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.12.1993 eomplainant Jaipal Kujur (PW-1) had gone to the shop of the respondents forselling certain oil seeds. It is alleged that on account of weighing of the said oil seeds, there was some dispute between the parties in which complainant was abused and assaulted by the respondents/accused. 3. In support of its case the prosecution has examined as many as 4 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the respondents/accused were also recorded under Section 313 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure in which they have denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the Court below has acquitted the respondents/accused of the charges levelled against them. /^ :.€^ 5. Counsel for the appellant/State submits that the acquittal of the respondents/accused of the charges mentioned above is not in accordance with law and on the basis of material available on record the Court below ought to have convicted them but a grave illegality has been committed by it in awarding acquittal by the judgment impugned. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondents/accused supports the judgment impugned and submits that the findings recorded by the Court below being fully justified do not require any interference in appeal. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Perusal of the evidence of complainant Jaipal Kujur (PW-1), Manglu (PW-2) and Shiv Kumar Panika, shows that their version given in the Court is full of contradictions and omissions as allthese witnesses have described the incident in a quite different manner assigning the totally different role to the respondents/accused. Record also shows that the complainant, at the relevant time, was working as driver of SDO (P) and it appears that the respondents/accused were arrested and brutally beaten in the custody simply due to the influence of the complainant in which they had suffered number of injuries. The record also shows that none of the respondents had abused the complainant in the name of his caste and therefore the provisions of Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not attracted in this case. 9. After going through the material available on record, keeping in view the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal iftwo views are possible on the basis ofthe evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one vjew favoured the accused, this Court of the considered opinion that •/" 1 ..i.t-li.[;;..illlu K.,in-ifM r; /'"^ "%, k^^] ^*-... ^p^^' l'::i!*BlB!e»is~" «"'.^!' -3- reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/accused of the offences under Sections 294, 506 and 323 IPC and section 3(1) (x) ofthe Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Juctge ^.\