IHHHHHIHHIIHIII 064570 l’ THE HIGH COURT OF JUmCATURE AT JABALPU (M. sR 00 ’ 156 O 99 . 93CM7 ;1 CRIMENAL APPEzu. No x>~ OFQ1-999@% CnCI OCASE N F 19 : State of Madhya Pradesh AA VS ”c‘ P A n Santu, son o£ Shri Gokul Prad Rajhode. aged abut 27 years, r/o Near Ganes andir(Tample) .Bailapsara h M $i3H.‘ Rajnandgaon,(M.P.) .- ‘‘ON ND CN 8i O GT OF AV TO . N C 3 CO O C 13 w I N R, P.) APPELIANT PPLICNT RESONDENT S CCE SED sa o A APPLICAII UER SETIO 37(ii) FR RAN LEE APPEAL UDER SETION 78(1) OF THE DE F RIMINAL PROCEDURE. 97. SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTECE PRITENKER DIWAKER $B : E€§N LE MR. JUSTICE PRYPII‘EKER BIWAKER CR.A. RH). 2362i2900 ‘ APPLESANE State of M. E“. V€TSHS E3N-AFPLECABE‘T Santa ‘ r Shift Adm Mishra, Dyv GA. for the Stata; appiicant. W?LIC_A_’§ION FOR GRAI‘JT OF LEAVE TQ gPEAL ENS: 3"?S!31 Ahfa KEEEMQ OF EPFEAL U{$ 373‘, 1E OF THE CRff‘. JUk’Kh AEEEE‘ z i2?.@4.20 3.03 Th6 praSmlt appeal arise$ out of $6 impugxmd jurigmem. I date& 9.3.99 passtad by the Chief Judicial Magistratte, Rajnandgaan in Criminal Case N0. 486j96 whereby acquitting tha accused] respondent for the o$enee wider Section 354 of the 1PC. V 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.4.96, FER {EX.P/ 2) was todged by the prosecu’m'x (PM/n2} aged about 12 years alleging in it that on that day when she was sleeping with her mother, at about 2.00 a.m., accusedhespondent had tried to remove her underwear as a result of which she woke up and saw the accused/respondent. She has stated that she immediately raised cries upon which he ieft the place. 3. In support of the case, prosecution has examined four witnesses. Statement of the accused] respondent was aiso recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges levelied against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication vin the case. This apart, two defence witnesses have also been examined in support of their case. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties, the trial Court has cquitted the accusedlrespondent for the oh‘ence as mentioned above. Hence the present appeai. a 5. I have heard Shri Mishra and perused the impugned judgment as well as the material available on record. From the evideuce of the prosecution witnesses it is ~ apparent that the relations between ths two families ware strained and it has been admitted by the prosecutrix that the incident had 1 taken place i}: the darkness of night and she had not seen the resyondent/accused doing the said act. The eviderlce further ‘ reflects that theincident was not disclosed by Puna Bai (RWnS) mother of the prosecutrb: to ‘any of the Villager. 5.“? After appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Court b‘elow has arrived to a particular conclusion of acquitting tha accused] respondent. 7. I iind no reason to interfere in the judgment of acquittal particularly the View taken by the court below is one of the possible View. It is a settled position of law in relation to cases against acquittal, in a petin'on against acquittal iftwo 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 Vieyv into consideration is not permissible in law, this Court is of the View that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents! accused of the offence as alieged 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. n Sdl- 2‘ Pritinker Diwaker Judge ,._..4 (T?