's <-. K^; ;e RS' iN THE HIGH COURT QF JUDICATURE AT BILASWR CHHAn'lSOAKH APPELLAfj'^ :^ ^,.^ ~^s^^:. .,,^'^•ft5^-"1' 'R.«> RESPOMDENT : o.&.^ Statc of Chhattibsgam Police Slation : Kauker, District : Norfh Bastar Kanker (C.O) VERSUS Vinod s/o Ramcbandra, Agcd about 24 years, Occupation : Labour, R/o Singarbhat, Kanker District Kankcr (CU). i) •> UA^'n APPLIC'AION POR URANT 01:' LBAVE T-0 API'EAL UNDBR SECr'ION 378 f3) ANU MBMOKANUUM OF APPEAL UNUEK SKCriON 378 fl) OFTHE CQDE OF_CRIMiNAL PROCEDURE. 1973. ;r F;-il; ^i ?;;-^^®^^ ^ |BSa|S3aSSS|^ HIGH COURT OFCHHAtTTSGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritjnker Diwaker) Acquittal Appeal No. 30of 2009. APPELLANT State of Chhattisgarh VERSUS • RESPONDENT Vinod S/o Ramchandra Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for the appellant/State. Smt. Sudha Agrawal counsel for the respondent/accused CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1) OF THE CODE OF CRIIVIINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (17.02.2010) The instant appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 15.7.2004 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanker in Criminal Case No. 1510/2002 acquitting the respondent/accused of the pffence punishable under Sections 451 and 354 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged on 25.11.2002 by prosecutrix (PW-1) alleging that on that day at about 4 p.m. the respondent/accused who happens to be the nephew of the prosecutrix had entered her house, caught hold of her hand and made an attempt to throw her on the ground but she somehow freed herselffrom his clutohes and ran away. 3. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the respondent/accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the Court below acquitted the respondenVaccused of the offences punishable under sections 451 and 354 IPC. v*3^ ^^ fll , ...._ 1 f 'tet;£S'A ^A.^'^*^ SEEiS'a® '., 'lh- ¥i WfWSWS^s ?l^^i:*fe3i^g:^<; i 5. Counsel for the appellant/State submits that on the basis of .material available on record the Court below ought to have convicted the respondent/accused for the offences under sections 451 and 354 IPC but having ignored the evidence adduced by the prosecution and thereby awarding acquittal to him if haslanded itself in a grave legal error. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondenVaccused supports the impugned judgment. 7. From the record it is clear that prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that when she was busy in the household work in her house, respondent/accused came there and caught hold of her hands but she somehow managed to come out and then started shouting. She has further stated that with what intention the accused had come to her house, she cannot say. In her cross examination she has stated that there existed some dispute between her and the respondent/accused as well as his father. Bharat Ram (PW-2) - the neighbour of the accused and the prosecutrix has stated in his evidence that he was informed about the incident by the prosecutrix herself. Bhagwan Singh (PW-3) has stated that he did not know as to why the accused/respondent had entered the house of the prosecutrix. Leelaram (PW-5) - husband of the prosecutrix has stated that he was informed by fhe prosecutrix that the respondent/accused had caught hold of her hand. The overall record does not go to show that the accused/appellant had gone to the house of the prosecutrix with an intention to outrage her modesty and therefore the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent/accused appears to be correct. 8. Thus after going through the material available on record and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an k appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that •"3^ iiRi';s"a.i % ^^y @ 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 judgment impugned acquitting the respondent /accused of the offences under Sections 451 and 354 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. Sdf- Pritinker Diwaker Judge• t^^'v^.-i ^!s's:il-i