HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR Coram: Appellants (Complainants) Hon'ble Shri T.P. Sharma & Hon' ble Shri R.N.Chandrakar, JJ ''Cri.M.P.No. 552 of 2010 1. Pawan Sai, s/o. Man Sai, Caste- Harijan, aged 55 years. 2. Dashrath s/o. Man Sai, Caste Harijan, aged about 52 years. Both occupation - Agriculture, r/o. village Nevra, P.S. & Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (CG). 'Ss^lBi ) ^ Vs. Respondent (accused) 1. Kapil Sai, s/o. Roop Sai, aged about 45 years. 2. Prem Sai, s/o. Roop Sai,aged about 30 years. 3. Akalu s/o. Roop Sai, aged about 28 years. 4. Narayan s/o. Ram Prasad, aged about 27 years. 5. Shatrughan, s/o. Kapil Sai, aged about20 years. 6. Suman Prasad, s/o. Agar Sai, aged about 35 years. 7. Nanka s/o. Jagat, aged about 50 years. ' 8. Shiv Das, s/o. Nanka, aged about 30 years. 9. Punesh s/o. Nanka, aged about 25 years. 10. Ram Prasad, s/o. Roop Sai, aged about 50 years, occupation Service. 1 11. Khem Sai, s/o. Roop Sai, aged about 40years. All belpng to Caste — Harijan oecupation Agriculture, r/o. Village Nevra, P.S. & Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG). (Criminal Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Present: Shri AshokKumar Shukla, counsel for the appellants. Oral Order (Passed on 24-9-2010) PST T.P. Sharma, J. 2. By this petition under Section 378 (4) of the Cpde of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner have prayed for leave to appealagainst thejudgment ofacquittal dated 26-7-2005 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District Surguja in Sessions Trial No. 519of2004, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surguja, has acquitted the respondents of thecharge under Section 395 of the IPC on the ground that the petitioners have failed to prove the charge against the respondents all reasonable doubt. Learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the present case the court below was required to consider whether the petitioners were in possession of the property and the respondents have committed robbery of the property of the petitioners or not, but -a1-te the court below has not Considered the said aspect ahd thereby committed illegality. 3. We have heardleamed counsel for the petitioners and perusedthe record ofthe trial Court including the impugned judgment. 4. From perusal of the evidence of PW/1 Pawan Sai and PW/2 Dashrath, it is clear that the statements of the petitioners are self contradictory and sufficient for drawing suspicion about possession of the disputed property as also commission of robbery. In the present case, cognizance was taken by the court on the basis of ' complaint filed by the petitioners stating that they filed written complaint (Ex.D/2) against the respondents but no action was taken by the Police. On perusal of Ex.D/2 also there are several discrepancies about the day and date of incident in the statements of the petitioners. Inter alia, the respondents have taken defence that thealleged house in question was their own propertyand they are residing in the said house. The respondents contested the case on the basis of title for which they producedcertain revenue papers which go to show that the house in question was not owned by fhe present petitioners but the same is recorded in the Bame of the respondents No. 1,2 and 3. Further, it appears from the evidence available on record that therewas civil dispute between the parties regarding the house in question which has been admitted by the petitioners in their testimonies. Considering the nature of defence ^ i taken by the respondents and inadequacy of evidence of the Sf'7,'r^iSW^St. .-'.-S it,lss^sssis'"y: ^:'^..;:'l;''ss«fc:' ^^ Raju complainants/petitioners, the court below has acquitted the respondents. On a close scrutiny of the evidence and considering all the aspects of the matter, we do not find any ground for interference in the findings of the acquittal recorded by the court below. Consequently, we do not find any ground for leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ) .} Sd/- .P.Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ./ .. .-