_ ’ . ,Smge Bench { “Mina” i m TEE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRAE$H AT JABALPUR. ‘ m/E .c. No. _ 33L, ‘19'.9zg,, CRIMINAL APEAL No; 13’5“? [19971;2‘1 I APEEE‘LLANTw THE: STATE @‘nmu THROUGH. ‘ ; _ - mum: STATION: B‘EMETRAy ‘ ~vzRSUs— , h ‘ I RE$P0NLENTz1 DARBMifa‘a/o summ MTNAMI,‘ C1 W ‘v f AGED 40 YEARS, m RESIDENT :_/ SIRSA' PoLICE sTATION. a » y j ‘ BEMETRA' DETRICTa-BURMMP)‘, £ a . . j mmmm;§wm ‘ éz. 6: w...‘ \ HIGH COURT OF CHI-IAT‘HSGARH AT BILASP’UR ' Q SB : HON’BI;E MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER cR.A.uo. 23971 1997 APPELLANT State of Chhattisgarh VQI‘SHS Darban‘ RESPONEEN’I‘ ‘ u Shri Pmvcen Das, Dy. G.A. for the State] appcnant. Desf)ite of issuance of notice none appears for thc respondent/accused, Shn' Santosh Yadu, Advocate, who in the panel of High Court Legal Sexviees Authority, is appointed as counsel to represent the respondent in this case. APPLICATION FOR GRNT OF LEAVE TO APEAL UI§ 378(3) & CRA. U/S 378(1) ¢RP:¢. JUDGMENT ' (20—01-2010) x The present appeal is dimcted against the judgment dated 15.2.97 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Fimt Class, Bemetara in Cr.Case No. 517/ 1989 acquitting the Iespondent for the alleged onences under Section 323 &. 326 of the IPC. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 31.7.1989’FIR Ex.P/ 1 was lodged by P.W.-1 Jatan alleg'ng in it that on the said date at about 7.00 a‘m. when he was going to the deld with his éattle foreplgyghing he saw the accused ploughing his held and when he tried to stop him nom doing the same, as there was some pending dispute, he was assaulted by the accused with club and ‘Ramph" (a kind of spade} as a result ofwhich he sustained injuries on various parts of his body. @H 3 . In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. 'IWo ‘iiefence witnesses 'have also been examined. Statement of the accused was also mconied under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charge leveled against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After healing the ’panies, the Conn below has acquitted the accused/respondent of the oh'ences as mentioned above. Hence the‘pnesent appeal. a Contention of Shri Das, counsel for the State] appellant is that despite the fact that the complainant namely Jatan (P.W.-1) has categon'cally made allegation against the mspondent and the fact that his statenient has been duly supported by the medical repoxt, the Comt below has erred in law in acquitu‘ng the accused. He fuxther submits that the (3mm below has also cued in law in granting benent to the accused under the provisions of 104 &. 105 IPC. '\ 6. On the other hand Shri Yadu, counsel appealing for the respondent submits that the land in question is owned and possessed by the accused and on the relevant date it is the accused who was ploughing his field and when attempt was made by the complainant for ploughing the nled there was some scume between them. He submits that the accused had every right to defend his property under the Provisions of Sech‘ons 104 85 105 of the IPC. 7. P.W-.-1‘ Jatan Ram has stated that on the fateful day he was assaulted bywthe accused and the entire incident has been witnessed by Nee1 Kanth (Pm-8). However Neei Kanth has not supported the statement of the complainant and has categorically stated that he was not present when the alleged maarpeeth had taken place. P.W.-1 damn admits that there was some dispute in respect of hand in quesu'on between him land the accused. He also admits that vghen he reached the eeld the accused was already ploughing his eeld. P.W.—3 Ram Kumar who was the employee of the accused had stated that the dispute amse in the §e1d of the accused. P.W.-5 Mohan has categorically admittai that the held in question is of the accused and it is he who was ploughing the held. P.W.’-6 Thanuram though has stated that there was some dispute between the complainant and ‘« ‘the accused but he could not see the same pmperly as he was in the adjacent held. He further submits that the held belongs to the accused. P.W.-8 Neelkanth has stated that the accused was already present in the field in question and it is he who was ploughing the held and subsequently the complainant reached there. ‘ 9. Considering all the aspects of the case, the Court below appeals to be right in acquitting the respondent/accused and no disturbance to the same is called for in appeal. Moreover, this Court is very much. conscious of the existing legal positio‘n 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 favoured the accused, reversion of the iindings of acquittal by the appellant Court taking the other possible View into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent/accused of the onence under Sections 323 an 326 of the Indian Penal Code, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being withgpt substance is liable to be dismissed. It is accoxdingly dismissed. " T Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge