sfcta^a MiGH CQUKT QE5HHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR Uivision sencn non'bie Snn Uilip Kaosaneb UesnmuKn a Hon?ble Shrl Ral^shwsr Lal Jhanwgr, JJ^ cnminai Appeai sto. Z2B1 ot 2000 "he State of M.P. through the SHO, P.S. Korba, Chouki Rampur, Distt. Korba. versus Knstina iViishra, S/o Jagdish iVlishra, aged ?^ Vrtt R/r> R?amnii R«<£tiCthftiit<i P?trnniir 11 i, P.S. Korba, uistt. KorDa. Appiication unaer secnon 3/8iiiii or tne cr.P.C. ror arani or ieave to ainosa' arsainst ths iudci!7!snt QfscGustts! snd Onfninsl ADDSSI U/s 37S (') Ur.r.U. i-resent : snn v. A. uoveranan, Panei lawyer rorme appeiianvsiate. Kinn^ fr>r th& ria<snonrf(an<- ORAL ORDbR (Passed on 24m Auqust, 20091 riotice sent to tne responaem viae oraer aaiea z^-ue-^uua nas returned wlth an endorsement that he was not found on the address given. (2) The State has prererred this appeai under Section 378(1) or the ur.h'.u. against me acquinai or me responaent-Knsnna Mssnra Trom tne cnarges unaer aecnon au/ or the l.P.C. ana Section 25 & 2/ or me Ai'ms Act by the Additionai Sessions judge, Korba, District Korba in Sesslons Case No.501/99 vide judgment aaiea 30-1 1 -1999. (a) inaepenaent witnesses-Kumaresn Pal, P.W.I ana h'anaau uas rviaham, P.W.2, who according to the prosecution, had seen the respondent nre aesni Kana on Assistam sub tnspector-M. M. Khan, aid noi suppon ine prosecution story. NO matenai v/as produced Dy tne prosecution 10 prove inat a snot was nrea rrom tne aesni Katta oy me responaem. SUD inspector s. ^. onarma, i-.vv.s aiso aaminea in para 12 mat he did noi test nre Trom me aesni Kana examinea oy nim. Hls testimony did not reveal that tne aesni \\. '•>'~;'»(d3 'i.- ^'•"([^; •2._ Kaaa anct live cartnage were received Dy nim ror examinatlon in a seaiea condition. Sub inspector M. M. Khan, P.W.3 did not depose that the rsspondent had fired the a'eshi katta on him. in para 21, the iearned Adaioonai sessions juage has furrner neld mat me prosecution did not estaDiisn oeyona douot tnai desni h'ata was seizea rrom me respondent. (4) Learned Panel lawyer appearing on behalr of the appeiianfState did not point out any niegaiiiy in tne juagment or acqulttai passea oy ine iearnea Aaaitionai sessions judge. (&) On reappraisat or evidence led Dy the prosecution, we are of ine consiaerea opinion mat tne view taKen Dy the iearned Additional yessions juage is a piausiDie view of me evidence on record. No imerrerence is tnererore caiiea ror in ine impugned judgment. (0} i ne appeai nas no mem wnicn is accoraingly aismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge \