? ^ v'^^ •'^ ^:L 1. 1\ "V" A? ^ ^' sl^ |!^j 'II A/lj^? 1-i -•8 ^ 1. -s 'i^1^^^^^ ~ISS IN THE HIGH COURT GF MADHYA PRADESH AT JA: Ho;^^ '-(^imlnal Appeal\No^UI IW^^^^ APPELIANTS APPLICANT ' Respondents; NONAPPLICANTS ol oi^'i ^ 2§ Budhiya Bai x^jife of Aklaha Satnami aged 39 years^ R/o SatnaBi.Para^ Nandai Oiowk, Rajraan^gaon District Rajnandgaon -Versus- 1, Man-fcora Bai wife af Banshi Mahar j aged 40 years Banshilal sonof Tulstram Mahar I aged 45 years ; bo±h ;R/o $atnasii Para | Nandai Chowk, Rajnaiadlgaoii, Dffe^H^jnand- | gaon & -'\\ 3. State of Madhya Pradesh CR3MINAL APPEAL U/s 378 (4) Cr.P.C^ FOR GRANT OF SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 1994. APPELLANT RESPONDENTS VERSUS Budhiya Baiwife ofAklahaSatnami. Mantora Bai and others. Shri Prakash Narayan Mishra counsel for appellant. Shri Basant Dewangan counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava PL for respondent No.S/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (04.02.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.5.1993 passed by Judicial Magistrate First CSass, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Case No. 20/1983 acquitting the respondents No. 1 and 21 accused ofthe offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.10.1980 a complaint case was filed by the appellant herein before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, to the effectthat on 13.6.1980 when she was going out of the village, she had handed over all her ornaments worth Rs. 7000 to the respondents/accused. It is alleged that earlier also she used to do so. It is alleged that on the next day she returned to her village and when asked the respondents/accused to return her ornaments, they told her that the same would be given after one hour. Thereafter, when she again demanded her ornaments from the respondents/accused, they told her the same to have been stolen. Accordjng to the appellant, no such theft had taken place in the house of the respondents/accused and they kept her ornaments as they wanted to grab the same and thereby committed an offence under Section 406 IPC. ^! -2-- 3 . So as to hold the respondents/accused guilty, the prosecution has examined 04 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the respondents/accused were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted the respondents/ accused of the charge as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Record reveals that on 13.6.1980 the ornaments were handed over by the appellant/complainant to the respondents/accused which has not even been denied by them. Defence of the respondents/accused before the Court below was that the ornaments handed over to them by the complainant were stoten by someone else and therefore the same could not be returned. All the witnesses have admitted that respondent/accused Mantora Bai had informed them that on account of the theft in her house the ornaments could not be returned to the complainant. Report of the concerned police station is there according to which on the report of respondenVaccused Mantora Bai incident oftheftwas registered but as the thief could not be traced, the final.report was submitted. 7. Learned Court below has considered all the aspects of the matter and has acquitted the resppndents/accused on the ground that the ornaments which were given to them could not be returned to the complainant as there was some theft in the house of the respondents/accused and therefore they cannot be said to have committed the offence under Section 406 IPC. 8. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view 1 favoured the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that fj^ reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore the well founded judgment impugned acquitting the respondents /accused of the offence under Section 406 IPC, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. | i SdA Pritinker Diwaker i Judge r^