or cRImNAL PROCEDURE AgAxNsr was or AcgvxTmL i \ BY SHRI A,S,CHANDEL£ JUDICIAIiMAGIs‘TRATE CLASS IzJMAHAsmwn 5 INbRIMINAL casE N0 14 '93 ' . 5 W w“ «g CF0000059469 V 1 W . h Mum ‘ f"?§im f IN THE HIGH CQURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPU‘R. 7 . q M.Cr.c. No. % ‘o£ '9 a CN 9y $75‘l36 ' Aggrlicant : Manrakhanlal, sen of Late Lalluram. aged about k wwwm¢ ‘65years, MahasamundPDistt. Freeéomki‘ighter, Raipur. regident 3 of 1 - Versus - ” P Nan-Applicants Ls &1. Shqimal‘ Rathi, ageéab‘out 60 years, 2 ‘i’ songf Ram Lax/Maheshyari g} ' ‘ y‘g f 2. Ranidan, agedabeut 407‘ye>ars. son of é Ram La]. Rathi Maheshwari‘ z M5 its. Kanhaiya Lal. aged abcaut 35 y’ears, son of Ram La; L/Rathi Maheshwari ; ‘ 4. Dwarika Piasad. aged:about 35 years} son \ ¥ { s cf not knewn ; Devichand; aged about 22 years; son of \ gvs. Shrimalwaathi‘Maheshwari g p\|' , E‘QODEQ‘ (All residents ’ of Mahasamund, V Dist't. >7 ‘1 Raipur.’ v \ \ Dimmmmnay MPLICA'HON V FOR LEAVE To APPEAL Egg ER > SECTION’ wag) OF cons - APPELLANT VERSU$ g This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.1995 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, Manrakhanlai Shrimai Rathi and four others Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents. CRIMINALAPPEAL ublDER $ECTEON 374 (Z) 9F Tim cons or- cRImNAL PRocsoumE, A JUD$M$NT (20.06.2011) Criminal Complaint Case No. 1514/1993 acquitting all the respondents of the offence under Sections 147 and 323 of IPC and also acquitting respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5 of the offence under ‘ Sections 294 of IPC, 3. After due appreciation of- the evidence, learned Magistrate vide impugned judgment has convicted only respondent No.4 for the offence under Section‘ 294 of IPC HIGH coum or cunAntsenm AT estAsPun (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 375 of 1996 District—Raipur 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.05.1992, a complaint case was filed by the complainant/appellant alleging in it that on 03.02.1992 at about 9 a.m; he was abused and assaulted by the respondents. In support of its case, the complainant has examined two witnesses namely Nohar Lal Yadav and Dr. N. K. Mandpe besides himself. @ -Q— whereas all the respondents have been acquitted of all other offences leveled against them. 4. Contention of ,Shri Sahu,‘ learned counsel for the appellant is that on the basis of evidence adduced by the complainant, the. Court below ought to have convicted the respondents for the offence under Sections 147, 323 and 294 of IPC but ignoring the same and thereby awarding acquittal to the respondents, it has fallen in a grave legal error. aw 4‘ 5. Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. From the record it appears that the Court below has acquitted the respondents mainly on the following grounds:— i) That the statement of the complainant has not duly supported by other eye witnesses. ii) The injury report and timing of the complaint does not support the prosecution case. iii) statement of the complainant is not reliable and does not corroborate with his medical report. iv) The doctor has not supported the prosecution case. 7. Thus, I find no illegality in the order impugned dated 27.07.1995 and after going through the materialavailable on record 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 evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view’favoured the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other diausible view into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore the judgment impugned acquitting the e @ “3‘. accused/respandents of the offence under Sections 147, 323 and 294 of IPC is just and proper and does without substance is iiabie to be dismissed the appeal being not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingiy, dismissed. . It is accordingly N Sd/u Pritinker Diwaker ‘ Judge ’ ‘ )0