COURT FE S BY~onHcAmN No 2 0/xx1o ' a; n éoaAs SPECIFIED m smEDu E oum FEEc A rT 1 “7a IN THE HIG' COURT OF JUD CR M P NO. » v AC UITTAL APPEAL N "The State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, JanJgIr—Champa (C G VERSUS A ‘ :, RESPONDENTS :. ‘ i n 1 Lachchhl @ Laxmi Prasad S/o - Devdhar Patel Aged about 37 years Roopsai -fS/o Anand Ram Patel Aged about 25 years Punauram S/ o Chhedva Ram Patel Aged about 27 years ‘Ghanshyam S/o Vishvanath Patel Aged about 27 years Ajaykumar Lg» S/o Vishvanath Patel - Aged about - 19 years 1 All are R/o. — Village — v a'ladikhurd P.S. Baradwar, strictaJanj'giraChampa (C.G.) APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL Ul S 3/ AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL U S 378 . . 3 1 ' ...l OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE '1973 ICAT RE AT BILASPUR O. . l ) 3 = : ' . . .P i HIGH COURT OF CHEATTISGARH AT BILASPUR an :Hon'xm MR. Jus Pm “ " D1 r ' n. CEMIJWO. 528/2009 Shri Praveeh Das, Dy. G.A. for the Smtn/ applicant. Shli Somnath Verma, counsel for the respondents“ PETITION-UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE GREG. bRDER (22.03.2010) Heard on admission. . The present petition which is baned by 208 days is directed against the impugned judgment dated 25.5.2007 ‘ passed by the Sessions Judge, Janjgir—Champa in Special Sessions Trial No. 29/2007 . Whexeby the accusedhespondents have been acquitted for the oEence § under Sections 148, 294, 506 (II), 323/ 149 an 427 of the '1 ‘ Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste] Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atmcities) Act. ‘ v 2. Bn'cf facts ofthe‘case am that on 15.1.07, FIR Ex.P/6 V was lodged by one Visha} (P.W.-2) alleging in it that on the same day at about 7.30 p.m. on the occasim oftGuru Ghasidas Jayanti celebration, the accusai persons have abused Sewak Ram (P.W.-3), Manohar (P.W.-4), ’I‘ilak Sai (P.W.-6) 85 Khilawan and assaulted them by clubs as a result ofwhich they sustained injuries. 3. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined eight {himesses Statement of the accused] Iespondents were also recoxded under Secu'on/313 of the or.P.c. in which they denied the charges leeened against them and pleaded their innocence and false imylicationinthe case. This apart, two defence witnesses have also been examined by them in support of theit case. \ . APPLICANT State, of Chhat1isgarh v¢rsu$ RESPOKDENTS . Lachchhi @ Laxmi Pmsm 5r. Others -1, 4. After hcanng counsel for the pathes the (hurt below has acqulttcd the accused/respondents Hence tbls petuon 5. Contention of Shri Das, counsél‘ hr the applicant] Stats is that despitz the fact that them is enough evidence available on recoxd the Court below has erred in law in acquitting the accused] xespondents. He submits that the evidence has not been coxrectly appreciated by the Court below while passing the impugmd order and judgment. 6. On the other hand counsei for“ the mspondems submits that the impugned onder and judgnent is in accordance with law and theieis no inhrmity in the same. v He submits that even othelwise also the judgment of acquittal cannot be interfered with unless the oEences are found to be perverse. 7. I I have heard counsel mt the parties and perused m record. From the judgment it is clear that the Court hebw had acquitted the respondents on the tollowing gmumds. i) that there are discrepanmes 1n the statements of the Witnesses m parhcular Vishal (PW -2), Sewak Ram (PW -8), Manohar (PW -4§, Heeta SauPw-smmaksmpw-s) ii) From the ev1dence 1t 1s not clear as to what exactly Was the abusive language lmrled by the accused persons. iii) Upon medical examination the doctor has not found any injuries on the body of the alleged injured persons namely, Khilawan, Sewak Ram (P.w.-3), Manohar (PAM-4) as 'I‘ilak Sai (Pm-6) (medical report is EXP] 1 to P/4). Even in respect of place of incident, there is discrepancy in the statement of the prosecun'on witnesses. v) The witnesses have admitted the hct that there wasno light where the incident had taken place e and therefore thu identiiication of the accuseri persons is doubtful. The caste certmcate Ex.P/7 is puxportedly issued by the Sarpanch though he 'm not the competent authority for issuance of casin certificate. ,8. I have gone through the evidence and have considcmd the above reasonings given by the Court While acquim'ng the accused]mspondents. 9. The court below after due appreciation has elaborately/considered the entire evn'ience as adduced by the pmsecution while arriving to a paru'cular conclusion‘of giving benem of doubt to the accused/respondents while ,acquitting them. I &1d no reason to inter-fem in the judgment of acquittal particmarly 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, 1n a petition against acquittal if two views am possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecun'on and the trial Court taking one view favomed the accused, revexsion of the nudings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideran'on is not permissible in» law, this Court is of the View that the judgment impugned acquitting the xespond’ents/ accused of the oEence is just and pmper. Accordingly, the leave as sought for by the applicant/State for reg‘strau‘on of appeal against the judgment of acquittal is hereby 1efused. “ éritinker Diwaker Judge l a, 5d!— ‘