sg s% ig^s g '^ h s>n t< g ^ l.r-,1 I'-Jl 1^1 Ib, I'ii t 0.1 Ig l^ |A2> s^\ 10 <0 ? ^[ 1% ^' B ^ I |a 1§. l^ l£s> :^ jtQ !&3 ISS> 'i-3 s>^ ^^ ^.: •^ •e-^. 5^^ ;.--,sa' C:J t^ c& -^ ^ CS^' ^ Q'-'JIII °?: wsK^ l.;"'J' "r:^ ^.., /t ^HHHHI. HI&H COURT OF CHHATTIS^RH AT Sirsgle Bench ; Hon'bl®Mr. Justice Pritink@r Dlwokgr' Crimina! No. 1673 of 1997 ^PPELb^NT ^ESPON&ENT The State of Mo.dhyo. Prode.sh (now ChhattJsgQrh) V^rsys Shiv Prasad ssn of Rqjaram ^ond Shrl Akhil Mishtra, Dsputy 9ovt. Advocate for the State/oppeilant. Ms. Sudha AgrGwol who earjier had fijed her rnemo of appearance on behalf of the respondent novtf submlts that she wouid wlthdraw ths same. Accordingjy, she Is permitted to withdraw her and one Mr. vlvek Shr'!ivfistava, Advocfite empaneiled in'the Hlgh Court Lega! Service Commlttee Is Gppoint.ed to appear and argue on his behGJf. CRIMINAL 378 (11 OF THE OF (06.05.2010) The present appeaj arises out of th@ Judgment and or^ie.r •dated 01.04.1997 by Judicial ^.Ggistro-te, First C14.ss, DhaTitGri in Crimirsd Case No. 1279/1987 acquitting fhe respondent/accuse.d for the aJle.Qe.d offence punishabie under Sections 456 ^ 354 of the Indion Penal Code., 2: Brisf facts of -t-he cass ore thot on 09.10.1987 FJ (Ex.P-1) was lodged by prosecutrix (PW-2) dleglng in it th<r( the intervenlng nlght of 8th/9th October, 1987 at about 2 | respondent/accused entered her house and trled to outr^ge her modesty by removing he.r cjothes. It Is further ojie^ that respondent/accused al.so pressed hsr breost, as a of which she woke-up and. saw the accuscd/respondent in ^ light of match stick and th.en the report has been lodged| her1.. re$u :.R. in cm ?me by ^,^ 3. In support of its .case, the prosecutlon has examined as many as 4 witnesses. State-ment of the respondent/occused' was dso r^corded under Section 313 of the Code of Crimino.1 Procedure in which he denied the charges Sevelied against him and pieaded hls innocence and fslse implication in the case. That opart, witness namely, Shanker La! (DW-1) has aiso been examined by the defence in support of its case. 4. By the Judgment impugned the court be!ow has o.cquitted the respondent/accused for the offsnce as mentioned aboye. Hence this appeal. 5. Counsel for the State/o.ppellGnt submlts that on' the basis of evldence .adduced by th®prosecution, the court beiow ought to have convicted the accused/r-espondent. He submits that there is enough materia! avaitebie on record warrantSng convictjon of the respondent/accused. 6. On the other hand, counsei for th®re-spondent suppoj^ts the impugned Judgment and submlts that inipugned judgmen1|- is in accordance wlth iaw and there is no infjrmity In the same. 7. I hove heard counsel for the pcrties and perused the materia! avGilabie on record. | 8. From the statement of the prosecutrlx (PVv?-2), 11^ iS apparent that ther-e are materia! contradlction's and omissijsns in her court statement and that of F.I.R. glven by her, In ^he court -statement sh©has stated that'sh®could identify ^he respondent afte" lighting the. match stick whereas m F.I.R such statement has been glven by her.. RamhJn Bai (PVV-1) stated that it Is the prosecutrix (PW-2) who has informed obout the incldent. However, In her cross-examinotlon she. no hos Iher has 1 ^, stated that one person h.ad come ortd caught her but she hpd not seen as to who he was. Even the prosecutrix has r^ot proper!y identified the accused/respondent. A!l the.se ospe^ts have be@n duiy considered by the court beiow while pGS^ng the impugnedjudgmentofacquittd. f .7 I 9. After due appreciotion of the evidence ^yQllo.bJe [ on record, the CourS- beiow has crrived to a conciusion that fhe ,y prosecution has not been able to prove its.case b®yond|al reasonabie doubts, ond therefore the respoNent is enti1{led for acquittd. 10. After hsaring coun-se! for the parrlss and going thr^ugh the evidence available on record and being v6ry much CQnsc|ous of the existing iegd posltlon that in Q cosehgdnst acqujtt^l jf two views are possible on the basls of the evidence ied by[the prosecution and the tria! Court taking one'A/lew favourab!|s to the csccused, rsversion of the findings oi acquittal by[ the appeilate Court- taking the other possible view ]lnto consideration, is not permissible.in !aw, thls Court is of the view thot the Judgment impugned acquittlng .the responcjent/ accused of the offence punishable under Sectlons 456 <Sj 354 of the Indian Penal Code, is Just and proper cnd;'doe.s no)r caj! for any interferenc®by this Court. 11. For the reasons aforementloned, there is no merit ijn the present case and the same Is djsi'nissed accordingly. $d/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge &/-