HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL'ASPUR Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Ra'eshwar Lal Jhanwar J. Criminal AQQeal No. 411 of 1997 State of Madhya Prédesh now Chhattisgarh versus Chandramani JUDGMENT Post for pronouncement ofgiudgment 30 -03-2010 R.L. Jhanwar Judge Sdl— @ ’ Criminal AQgeal No.41 1/1 997 A : State of Madhya Pradesh ppellant Of Through the Station House ficer, Pu§ore, Distt. Raigarh (M.P.) VelS US ’ V - _ Chadramani, S/o. Chamarsingh atel, Aged 20 years, R/o. Cote Bhandar, Police Station Pusore, £ ‘ Distt. Raigarh. Apglication for leave to AQQeaI uls. 378(3) Cr.P.C. and Criminal A ri S.K. Miehra, Pael Lawyer for he State/appellant. Shri Vashin Miya, counsel for the responent. (Delivered onthis day ‘ofMarc,2010) 3o h This criminal appeal is preferred by the State against the order dated 010.1996 passed b Judicial Magistrate, First lass aiarh in Crimina Case 11/1996 by which it had acquitted the respondent of the charge under Section 456 of lndian Penal Code. ,2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 07.02.1996 at night ‘near about 2 0’ clock, the respondent/accused entered into the :house of the complainant Dhanauram after jumping from-the courtyard wall. Seeing the respondent/accused in the courtyard, .. H.. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HONBLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR J. Respondent n P hh ppeal uls. 37891) Cr.P.C. aqainst acquittal Present: Sh n t d JUDGMENT \a 7. y C, Rg l 1 mother of Dhanauram namely Dularmati and his wife Phool Bai rased alarm. After hearing their shouts, Dhanauram came to the i courtyard and caught hold of the respondent/accused. The incident ed was aiso witnessed by his daughter Kamia. They ask the spondent/accused as to why he entered into their house, ut he re b did not repiy. According to the‘compiainant, he had Rs.5,000/— in his house which was received from the sale of his Iand. Therefore, he u - doubtedthat the respondent came to his house for theft. The incident was told to Panchram, Khoio‘ and Tejkumar of the village in A te night itself and in the next morng the matter was reported to h in .. Police Station Pusore. 3. After recording statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of th Cr..C. and after completion of investigation, charge shet e P e as med before Judicial Magistrate First-Class Raigarh under éection 456 of Indian Penal Code againstthe respondent. The harge was explained to the respondent who abjured the guilt and pleaded his innocence and false implication. After taking evidence and hearing both the parties and after appreciation of the evidence, the learned lower Court has acquitted the respondent/accused of charge under Section 456 of indian Penal Code. Against this judgment, the State has preferred this appeal. l4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has argued tat despite h there being ample evidence against the respondent, the Court below W , § c erred in écquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 456 of Indian Penal Code. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment of acquittal. 5. l have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Court below. 6. Learned lower Court has acquitted the respondent on the ground that there are discrepanCIes In the statement of the complainant Dhanauram (PW/1) Dularmati (PW/2) Phool Bai ‘(PW/3) and 'Deygun (PW/4). Even Kamla (PW/5) has not supported the evidence of the above witnesses. Panchram, Kholo and Tejkumar have also not supported the evidence'of the above witnesses. Therefore, the learned Lower Court has acquitted the respondent/accused. 7. After perusal of the statement of Dhanauram (PW/1) Dularmati (PW/2) Phool Bat (PW/3) It Is eVIdent that they had seen the respondent/accused Chandramony in their courtyard. According to Danauram (PW/1), his mother got up in the night to attend the natural call and had seen the respondent in their courtyard and shouted. According to him, they called Panchram, Kholo and Tejkumar and informed them about the incident. Dularmati (PW/2) has stated that when she got up to attend the natural call, she saw ; the respondent jumping from the c‘ourtyard wall and entering into . i\\ their house. Phool Bai (PW/3) and Devgun (PW/4) have also stated the same. Report (EXP/1) was lodged. 8. According to the above evidence, it is clear that on the spot Tej Kumar was present. But Tej Kumar in his evidence has stated hat he has not given any statement to the police under Section 161 f Cr.P.C. According to his statement it seems that he was informed hyihe Dhanauram (PW/1) on 08.02.96. lt means that he was not present in “the night. Therefore, his evidence is not reliable. Partchram (PW/6) and Kholoram (PW/7) have also stated that they were not aware of the incident and further stated that they had not given any statement to police and thus denied Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5. Thus it is clear that these witnesses Panchram and Kholoram have not supported the evidence of Dularmati (PW/2) and Phool Bai (PW/3). lt is also evident that Dhanauram has stated that they nformed this matter to Choukidar and toWheir maternal uncle. But this statement was not recorded in Ex.P/1 and also they were not examined as witnesses by the prosecution. Mangal also witnessed the incident but was [also not examined as witness by the prosecution. Kamla (PW/5) who is the daughter of Dharnauram has stated nothing about the incident. She has stated that in the early morning she was informed by her grandmother about the incident and stated that she has notgiven any statement to the police in this regard. This witness has also not supported the statement of Dhanauram (PW/1) and other witnesses though she is his daughter. W f’,_“ #‘. .. t o ‘ i g 9. In this way, it is 'clear from the statement of Dhanauram, Dularmati and Phool Bai that the accused entered into their house, but since there appears discrepancies in their statement, their evidence cannot be reliabie. According to Dhanauram, he locked the respondent in his house and informed the viliagers. But villagers Panchram (PW/6) and Kholo (PW/7) have not supported his version. It was aiso not recorded in the FIR that they took the respondent to poiice station or locked the respondent at the house of Dhanauram. i Thus, it is clear that no independent witness has supported the evidence of Dhanauram (PW/1), Dularmati (PW/2), Phool Bai (PW/3) and Devgun (PW/4). They are relative witnesses. Their relative Kamla has also not supported their evidence and her evidence is also not supported by the independent witness. Further, there were also discrepancies in their statement and FIR (Ex.P/1) that they have locked the respondent in their house and did not inform the police “R . about him. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt. After evaluating the material evidence available on record, the lower Court has rightly acquitted the respondent. The hndings recorded by the lower Court are purely based on legal, clinching and credible evidence. :10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and after iconsidering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the Court below, i am of the view that in an appeal against acquittal if two views on the prosecution @ evidence are possible and the trial Court has taken one view favourabie to the accused persons, then it wiil not be permissibie for the appeilate court to reverse the finding of acquittai by taking the other possible view on the prosecution evidence. Thus, the judgment of the learned lower Court is not perverse or illegal. ln the result, i do not tind'any such inflrmity in the impugned jud‘gngent of acquittal which may warrant interference in this appeal against the acquittal. Thus, the appeal tiled by the appellant/State against the acquittal of respondent/accused person is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge 36.03.2009 k/