HIGH COURT QF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR DIViSSON CORAiVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHR! RANGNATH CHANDRAKA Criminal Mssc. Petltion No.527 of 2010 State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer —Kodenar, Tahsii — Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) 1. Ramial Telami, S/o Late Shri Bichem. ^h.^E 'f- Q'3. *'^ O/A ^/-Uj'-tfffl: agea s&out 'Zd years, K/o Vlilags IViurmed, Thana Pharseaarh, District BasSar (CG) 2 Narayan Singh, S/o Jhagduram, Aged about - 36 years, R/o Viliage Rajkot, Thana Kodenar District Bastar (CG) 3. Magchsnd Sethia, S/o Ramrai. aaed R/o Viiiage Rajkot, hrf^? l^ ^?^^ l ^. ciUuul <.!£.. yscil i? Thana Kodenar District Bastar (CG) Appiication for arant of ieave to appeal under Section 378 (3$ Sectlon 378 (1) ofthe Code memorandum of appeai under of Crimlnat Procedure, 1973 Present: Shri Akhii Agrawai, Panei Lawyer for the petrtioner / State. Shri Prafuli Bharat and Shri Vikas Shrivastava, counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. 19"'August,2010) The follQwing order of th.e Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. F ,rf';/-**•*'%. rf' y'~ ~^f "'< Sffiut ^^iffife.. !S> • i v., k V / Y ^w "^•K%">"£^ Shri Akhi! Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer submits that respondent No.1 Ramlal Telami came to be Impieaded in the petition for grant of teave to appeai by mistake, as In fact he has been convicted by the trial Court itseif under Section 307 of She Indian Penal Code. Learned Panei Lawver therefore, submits that the present petition may be considered against respondent No.2 Narayan Singh and No,3 Magchand Sethia. 2) Learned counsel for the parties are heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents / accused persons. 3) Police Kodenar, District Bastar after completion of the investigation of the case registered on the report of injured complainant Puran Singh charge-sheeted respondents/accused persons Ramlal Telami, Narayan Singh, Magchand Sethia for the alleged commisslon of the offences punishabie under Sections 307 read with Section 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code on the accusatlon of their having attempted at the iife of injured compiajnant Puran Singh on 21 .04.2005. 4) The respondents/accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges framed by the trial Court under Sections 307 read with Section 34 and 120-Bof the Indian Penal Code. 5) The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence ied by the prosecution at the triat found that though the prosecution could succeed in estabiishing the charae punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penai Code against accused Ramlal Telami, the "•<• ^ feay-~- ^.;-'<;^'-;;::.' %.^''K'V.V1' '"^-/-ss'^' c prosecution evidence fell short of establishing the above charges against respondents / accused persons Narayan Singh and Magchand Sethia. The trial Court, therefore, while convicting respondent No.1 Ramlal Telami under SecSion 307 of the Indian Penal Code with sentences of Ri for 7 vears and find of Rs.300/-, acquitted respondents /accused persons Narayan Singh and Magchand Sethia of ail the charges vide impugned judgment dated 22.07.2006. 6) Shri Akhil Agrawai, learned Panel Lawyer vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondents / accused persons Narayan Singh and Magchand Sethia, though the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial was more than sufficient for establishing the charge of conspiracy punishable under Section 120-Bofthe indian Penal Code againstthem. 7) Shri Prafull Bharat and Shri Vikas Shrivstava, iearned ccunset for respondents No.2 Narayan Singh and No.3 Magchand Sethia on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and contended that as there was not even an iota of evidence for establishing the fact of any conspiracy by respondents / accused persons Narayan Singh and Magchand Sethia, the tria! Court has rightiy acqultted theseaccused persons. 8) During the pendency of this petitioR, the appeal filed by accused Ramlal Telami aaainst his conviction which was registered as Crimina! Appeal No.564/2006 was finaily declded vide judgment dated 06.10.2009, passed in Criminal Appeal No.564/2006. In the ^.^^°r-...<y 4 said judgment foilowlng observations have been made in para No.8: " After going through the material available on record it Is apparent that it is the present appetlant who went to the shop of the victim, brought him to some distance, picked up some verbal altercation with him and then Infiicted four knife btows on his stomach, chest and arm. The doctor who examined the victim has found various aforesaid injuries on hls body and oplned that in the ordinary course of nature the injuries are sufficient to cause death. This apart, there are three eyewitnesses to the incident who had caught the appellant red handed on the spot while he was trying to run away. Thus, this court is of the considered view that the trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in eonvicting the accused/appeilant for the offence mentioned above and in acquitting the other accused persons for wrant of any speciflc evidence against them to the effect that they were also involved in assaulting the victim. In v'ew of ali this material, the impugned judgment cannot be said to be faulted with ieading to any interference with the judgment Impugned." 9) The entire prosecution case agalnst respondents / accused persons Narayan Slngh and Magchand Sethla was founded on the evidence of PW/5 Ganesh, PW/6 Khemchand and PW/7 Bairam before whom the prosecution alleges that accused Ramlal Telami made a confessional statement to the effect that he was paid Rs. 10.000/- by accused persons Narayan Singh and Magchand Sethia for causina death of Pursn Sinah. ^ssy —~' 1 -v *" 10) Learned Panel Lawyer fairiy conceded that apart from the above evidence of PW/5 Ganesh, PW/6 Khemchand and PW/7 Balram, there was no other evidence for establishin.q the alleged fact of conspiracy said to have been hatched by respondents / accused persons Narayan Singh and Maachand Sethia vvlth their co-accused Ramlai Telami 11) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties; the findlngs recorded by the trial Court leading to the acquittal of respondents/accused persons and the nature of the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial for provina the alieaed fact of conspiracy, we are satisfied that the flndings recorded by the tria! Court leading to acquittal of the respondents/accused persons do not suffer from any infirmity, whatsoever. 12) Mere possibility of another vlew on the prosecutlon evldence witl not by itself be a sufTicient ground to warrant interference fn an appea! against acquittal. 13) We, therefore, do not find any aood ground for grant of ieave to appeal against the acquittal of respondents / accused persons Narayan Slngh and Magchand Sethia. 14) The petltion fited under Section 378 (3) of the Cr.P.C., therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed,__ Sd/- ChiefJustice padma Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge