HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DNISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Cr.M.P. No. 531 of 2007 State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, ‘ District Rajnandgaon (CG) Apyeliant VERSUS Anandi, Aged about 24 years, S/o Rameshwar Bareth, R/o Wlage Bijepar, PS Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (CG) 2 Ashok Kumar, Aged about 56 years, S/o Sirdar Singh, R/o Village Makurra, PS Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (CG) 3 Shyamiai @ Shyamiu Gond, Aged about 42 years, S/o Dhansay Gond R/o Viiiage Makurra, PS Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (CG) Dtiannaial Yadav, Aged about 30 years, S/o Kejuram Yadav, R/o Viiiage;.Jobh, PS Chhuriya,'VDistrict Rajnandgaon (CG) 5 Rameshwar, Aged about 4O years, S/o Sudhuram Pansari, R/o Village Paritola, PS Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (CG) 6 Nandlal, Aged about 45 years, S/o Sundar Gond, R/o Village Bharkakasa, PS Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (CG) 7 Sukhlal, Aged about 27 years, S/o Bhaggu Gond, Rio Viilage Bharkakasa, PS Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (CG) l Respondents owe —-- V?" r 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Smt Meera Bai, Aged about 35 years, W/o Madan Lal, R/o Village Bharkakasa, PS Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (CG) MadaniaL Aged about 45 years, S/o Darbari, R/o Village Bharkakasa, PS Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (CG) Dashrath, Aged about 40 years, S/o Tikaram Gond, R/o Village Bharkakasa, PS Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (CG) Khokhan Vishwas, Aged about 36 years, S/o Kamlesh Vishwas, R/o Village Jobh, PS Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (CG) Pramod Kumar, Aged about 27 years, S/o Tameshwar Das, R/o Village Jobh, PS Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (CG) Rodhan Lal, Aged about 41 years, S/o Kaman Singh, R/o Village Jobh, PS Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (CG) Latkhor, Aged about 45 years, S/o Amar Singh, R/o Village Jobh, PS Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (CG) Motilal @ Mochi Gond, Aged about 42 years, S/o Tikaram Gond, R/o Village Vicha‘rpur, PS Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (CG) Tomanlal, Aged about 26 years, S/o Jhaduram Yadav, R/o Village Bharritola, PS Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (CG) Paratram, Aged about 35 years, S/o Mansharam, R/o Village Bharritola, PS Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (CG) 17 18 Narottam, Aged about 25 years, S/o Beer Singh Sahu, R/o Village Bharritola, PS Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (CG) 19 Bharatlal, Aged about 38 years, S/o Bhagwat Gond, R/o Village Bharritola, PS Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (CG) 2O Henson Masih, Aged about 37 years, S/o Talim Masih, R/o Village. Chhuriya, P.S. Chhuriya District Rajnandgaon (CG) 21 Khorbahara, Aged about 50 years, S/o Surju Dhankar, R/o Village Bijepar, P.S. Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 22 Mohan, Aged about 33 years, S/o Rameshwar Prasad Sahu, R/o Village Bharritola, P.S. Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Agglication for grant of leave to aggeal UIS 378 (3) and memo of appeal uls 378 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Present: Shri Akhil Mishra, learned Deputy Government Advocate, for the State/petitioner. ORDER (02nd Jury, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta,‘C.J. By allowing lA No.1/2007, the documents filed along with this application are taken on record. 2) Shri Akhil Mlshra, learned Deputy Government'Advocate is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal against the acquittalof the respondent/ accused persons. 3) Potice Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon, after completion of the investigation of the case registered on the report of Videshi, brother of deceased Arjun Yadav charge—sheeted as many as 22 respondents/ accused persons, for the aiieged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147/148, 302 read with Section 149 and 201 of the indian Penal Code and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, on the accusation of their having committed murder of deceased Arjun Yadav in the night of 16.10.2006. 4) The respondents/ accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges framed by the trial Court under Sections 147/148, 302 read with Section 149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act. 5) At the trial, the above charges against the respondents/ accused persons were sought to be proved on the evidence of PW1 Videshi, PW2 Talab Singh, PW3 Vishwanath, PW4 Surju Ram, PW5 Dr. Ashok Bansod, PW6 Budhram, PW7 Ramdev, PW8 Urmila Bai, PWQ Shantaram, PW10 Prabhulal, PW11 Dulma Bai, PW12 Hriday Ram, PW13 Palturam, PW14 Behtar, PW15 Shankarlal, PW1 6 Kameshwar Bai and PW1 7 Ashok Kujur. 6) The trial. ‘Court on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence of the above named prosecution witnesses found that their evidence suffered from serious‘infirmities. The trial Court, therefore, found it quite unsafe to act upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and as such, all the 22 respondents/accused persons were acquitted-Vida impugned judgment dated 30.06.2007. T 7) Shri Akhil Mishra, learned Deputy Government Advocate vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of PW/7 Ramdev and PW/8 Urmiia Bai on flimsy and untenable grounds. Learned Deputy Government Advocate further submitted that the evidence of PW/7 Ramdev and PW/8 Urmila Bai was more than sufficient‘to establish the above charges framed against the respondents laccused persons. 8) At the trial, the prosecution case was that, the respondents/accused persons who are poor villagers were made to assault deceased Arjun Yadav by a group of Naxalites, whereas, in Dehati Nalishi (EXP/64), First information Report (EXP/68) and the diary statements of the two witnesses, PW/7 Ramdev (Ex.D/1) and PW/8 Urmila Bai (Ex.DI2), the specific case was that Naxalites themselves assaulted deceased Arjun Yadav, resulting in his death. That apart, there are material omissions in the case diary statements Ex.D/1 and Ex.D/2 of the two eyewitnesses, PW/7 . Ramdev and PW/8 Urmila Bai, in regard to the specific overt act of assault by the respondents/accused persons on deceased Arjun Yadav. 9) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Deputy Government Advocate; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of the respondents / accused persons; the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial in general and that of the PW/7 Ramdev and PW/8 Urmila Bai in particular; and the above mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the trial Court ieading to acquittai of the respondents / accused persons, do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 10) Mere possibility of another view on the prosecution evidence will not by itself be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal. 11) We, therefore, do not find any good ground for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondents/ accused persons. 12) The petition tiled by the petitioner/ State under Section 378 (3) of Cr.LP.C., therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. ’ Sd/- . \Ri€ Sdl- Subbu Sunil Kumar Sinha ‘l l Chief Justice 9‘ Judge l