HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2000 APPELLANT State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. Nand Kumar @ Anand Kumar son of Bhangoli, Caste Gode, aged 30 years. Punitram son of Kujyrama Gode, 35 years. Rameshwar son of Manrakhan Satnami, aged 39 years. All residents of Sankara, Police Station Arjuni, District Raipur (MP) now CG. (Application under Section 378 (iii) for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(1) ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Ranganath Chandrakar, J. Present: Shri D.K. Gwalare, Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State. Shri Vishnu Koshta, counsel forthe respondents. JUDGMENT (Delivered on this 12th day of March,2010) 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22-2-1999 delivered in Criminal Case No. 828 of 1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari, whereby the respondents No. 1 and 2 were acquitted of the charge under Section 323 of the IPC whereas the respondent No.3 was acquitted of the charge under Section 325 of the IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29-4-1992 the complainant Motiram (PW/4) lodged a written complaint in Police Station Arjuni stating that at ^;!aass,. - '^S^it i:: i!My^JS •vf,/ Ki iUwussSSC- about 8 - 9'0 clock one Anandram dug his land in his absence. Thereafter, Motiram called Itwarigond and during that period accused Anandram and Punitram beat him by hands and fists. At the time of incident Chaturram, Samari Bai and Rambai were present there. During investigation, Motiram was examined by Dr. O.S. Baijpai (PW/3) and Dr. Virendra Kumar Sahu (PW/6)~. 3. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondents. During trial the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, framed the charge under 'Section 323 of the IPC against respondents No. 1 and 2 and 325 of the IPC against respondent No.3. The accused/respondents abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. After completion of evidence of the witnesses, the statements of the accused/respondents were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication. 4, The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record and looking to the discrepancies and infirmities appearing on the statements of the witnesses, acquitted the accused/respondents of all the charges leveled against them as aforementioned in para 1 . 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellanVState submits that the judgment ofthe acquittal is erroneous in the facts and circumstances and the same is not sustainable under law. The learned trial Judge erred by not accepting the sufficient evidence appeared on record to prove the guilt against the accused/respondents. Learned counsel further stated that the learned trial Judge committed error of law while acquitting the accused/respondents. The judgment of the trial court is perverse to the evidence on record. Learned coilhsel lastly submits that the appeal be allowed, the impugned judgment of the trial court be quashed and the accused/respondents be convicted for the charged offences. • •s .-;'*i;^.. ;' WKV f ^ -'.t±-'-f^^',. sSS'siS'.s. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued the matter in support of the impugned judgment of the lower Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, 1 have perused the records of the trial Court and also the impugned judgment. 8. The prosecution in order to establish the charge against the accused persons examined six witnesses. 9. PW/4 Motiram stated in his deposition that on 29-4-1992 accused Nand Kumar dug the land of Motiram.'/and after some time he filled up the land. On the same day, accused Nand Kumar and Punitram beat him by hands and fists. He further stated that they also beat him on his left ear but this witness has not been cross examined by the accused. The, trial Court on that very ground disbelieved the statement of Motiram. The other witnesses Doctor 0,8. Bajpai (PW/3) and Virendra Kumar Sahu (PW/6) who have examined the complainant Motiram supported the injury of Motiram, but on the ground of non-cross examination of Motiram, the evidence of Doctors cannot be believed. The statements of other witnesses Puranik (PW/2), Mohanlal and Daulatram are also not reliable. 10.The trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents on the ground that the evidence of Motiram (complainant) is not reliable and the prosecution story is not supported by the evidence of other witnesses. 11.Considering all the facts and cireumstances of the case, l am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned trial Judge for acquitting the respondents is proper and reasonable and it cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse. I, therefore, find no reason to take a different view on re-appraisal of evidence. Acquittal of the respondents is well merited. fe^p 12.For the foregoing reasons, l find no merit in this appeal and the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Raji[ /"|C ^-^^*'" •