s.iSfvy- HIGHSOUR^OP<SHHA"ETlSGftRH^BI^SPUR DIVISIONBENGH CORAM: l-IQN'BI.E^imiR^iEEVSUPTA.C.J. HQN^LSSHf^RANQNAtHCHANDRAKAR.^ ^ K ApOellant: Griminal Misc.?Petitidri Nd.438 of2010 State of iChhattisgarh Through Police ,StattC Dprigai^SR,Rajrianc!gaion,E3i^t. Rajnancigaon (CG) Non-appellantS/: 1^ Bakshi Ram S/6 Sonuam Sahu, aged :Respondents';:,.'':^'.,:::aboyt,45yeare,\ -•,,,• 2 Pankajlal, Sto Bakshirarrr^agect aBQut :- ;. :T8years \"" :: ' .'' ••':•'.:::''!:,:^:':. 3. ReKhcHand, S/oBaRsnirani, ^gedabout .•:24ysara,;:.,.,,,:,.,'-..:;:.'':::',. ^lt^.R/iR Kanti^rpyi-i, flSy;DQngai]gaon, CHstt. RajRandgaon(CG) {ApplJcatjon^grantoflgave^oappealunderSeGtion^ mempranduniofaRpea!un^erSec{ion378'(1)<rfthe^^ GriminalPr6eec|ure,19i73) Present: Shri Akhil Mishra, Defiuty Govemment Advocat&for ^thej^itione^^Stafe.'':.-'':-',::.^''^:'.'^ :" ORDER >th (12mAugust,2010) :< : .:''. •' :, 1 .- The fbllowtng order of the Court was passed' by RajeevGupta, G.J. Byallowing I.A.No.527y2005,thedocumentsfiledalongwith this application are taken on record. a ss iB RR'; ^^^'s's ":~Synt f 2) Shri Akhil Mishra, leamed Deputy GovernmentAdvocateis heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal again^^ acquittalofrespohdents/acGusedperson;sBaltshi\Ram,Pankajlal anct'Rekhchand.".: -.1 • -': ;.':,'. •:.:. •::: .-:.•'• ,1-''::.^ 2) PoliceOongargaQn, District Rajnandgaon after completion of the investigation ^ the case registered on th^ Chhahnulal charge-sheeted respdndent/aeGUsed Bakshi Ram and hls two sons Pankajlal and Rekhchand Tor tMe alleged commission of theoTfences punlshable under Sections 302 read with Sectjon 34 and 120B OfAhe Indian Penal Code on the aceusatfan ot their ./. . • having committed murder bfdeeeasedBisruramon 20-03-2002. 3) The respondents/accused persbns abjured their gyilt and pleaded false implication to the charge framed byAhetHat^C^ finderSeGtion302read^ith;Secrtion34^oftHe Indian Penal 4) M^Be^trial ^ againsttherespor^ents/accusedpersonsontheevIdenceofPVV/1 toknath, PV^ SHobliit F^m Sahu, PVW3 Pheru ftam, F^oranlal; PW/5 Mannulat Sahu, RV^ K.K. RamtekeandPVWSAjayShankarTnpathi., 5)ThetrialGburtonaelo^scrutli^oftheentireevidenceof theabownamedprQsecutionwltr^sesfeundthalthfeprosecution evidenee fell shortof estabtlsMing the abpve chargesagainst tHe respondents / accused pereons. The trlal Court, therefore, acqyitted respondents 7 aceused pei^ns Bakshi Rarh, Pankajlar^ and F^khctland,^deimpygnedjydgmentdated^5-1C^004.^^^^^^^^^^ ,^<N" <£s' 6) Shri Akhil Mishra, ieamed Deputy Government ftdvoeate vehemently argued thatthe trial Gourt has erred in dlisearding the evidenee of the prosecution witne®eson fltmsy and untenable grounds. Learned Deputy GovernmentAdvoeatefurthersubmitted that the evidence pf the prosecution witnesses was more ^han sufncientforestablishingthechargepunishabieunderSection 302 readwithiSeGtion34ofthelndianPenalCocieagainsttheaccused persons., -' '-' ..•: ••'•\'-' : :. :. . : ;: : :; :'.. ' 7) Admittedly, ther& is no eyewitness account in the case ta connect the accused persons with the commission of mui-der of deerased Btsruram. The body of deceased Bisruram was found lying by the side of a road and it was flrst notiGed by Chunnulal, who reported the matter to theDollce. The entireprosecution ease against the accused persons vras founded on circ^ evidence atone. The main incriminating circumstances alleged against the accused persons were that the accused persons had motiveto cause death of deceased Bisruram on account ofsome dispute about watenng their fields and in regard to the partitjon of ancestral property; some articles belonglng to the deceased were seized at the instance of accused Pankajlal; and the vest 6f accused Bakshl Ramseizedfrom afieldwasstainedwlthblood. 8) It is the prosecutlon case itself that near the body of deceased Bisruram, his bicycle and wristwateh were lying. As such, it SQunds quite unnatural fhat the assaltants Of deeeased Bisruram wouldAake away hls gl^ses (spectaeles) whlcrT is nota very valuable or^eostly item leaving beNnd his bicyele and t0?% :-s^-••-&"»• S'.^/^'ate. 8 I .'^C&K@^.' • ..I 'wesses^f s^- ?c f.^ -?-. aaa f: wristWatch. That apart.the trial Court foundthat neither the seizure of giasses of the deceased at the instanee of accused Pankajlal could be established by the prosecution nor it could beestablished that these glasses were of the deceased as no test identification paradewas held during the course of the investigation. The vest saicl to Bepfaccused Bakshi Rarti though was found stained with blood, but no report from serologist wras produced before the trial Court to establish tMat these blood stains were ofhuman origin. Ihe lone remaining incriminating Gircumstanee in regard to the motive/even if held to beproved, will not by itself be sufficient to hold the accused persons gullty pn the capital charge of murder. 9) On due conslderation of the submlssions of learned Deputy Government Advocate; the flndings reeorcled by the trial Court lesiding to the acquittal of respondents/acGused persons Bakshi Ram, Pankajlal and Rekhchand; the evldence led by the proseeution atthe trial; andthe abovementioned broad featuresof the case, we are satisfied that the findlngs recorded by the trial Court leading to acqyittal bfthe respondehts/accused persons dp notsufferfrom anyinflrmity,whatsoever. 10) Mere possibilityof another vlew on the prosecutjonevidence will not by itselfbe a sufficientgroundtowaiTantinterferenceinan appealagalnstacquittal. ' 11) The petition flled by the petitioneryState under Section 378 (S^OftReGr.P.C^^grahtofleavetoappeala^ [,^>S Vf"'w^ ?• & '%'88^':| m of respondents/accused persons Bakshl Ram, Pahkajlal and Rekhchand.therefore.failsandisherebydismissed. Sd/- Chief Justice Subbu Sdf- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ff ^'