IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR AT CHHATTISGARH M^C.RC. NO.^^1 OF^200&-^ ACOUITTAL APPEAL N0. Tl /20( APPELLANT State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Distt - Dhamtari (CG) VERSUS NDENTS Deenbandhu @ Bandhu, S/o Bhaiya Rara Sahu, aged about 41 years, Village Hanchalpur Chowk, Chowki, Bhakhara, P.S. Kurud, Distt Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDBR SECTION 378 (3f AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1) OF THE CODE OF CmMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. ^s ^^ '^-.. __^_.-..^.— ^ H!GiI_COURT QF CHHATnSGARH AT. BILASPUR SB : HON'BLB MR. JUSTICB PRITI3?iK®RDSWAKE-R ,A.CQ.A.,NO.,71/2009 ^.. APPLICANT RSSPONDBNT versus StateofC.G. , DeenBaodhii (a). Ban.dh.u Shri Praveen Das, Dy. G.A. for tlie State/appMcaD.t. Shri D.N.Prajapati, counsel fcr fhe z'espoiident. APPBAL U/S 37801 OF THB CR2MINAL PROCBDURE COD® JUDGMBNT (01.02.2Q11| 'The present appeai arises out oftlie judgiiie:o.t aji.d order dated ^.5.06' pa.ssed by Judicial. Ma.gistrate, First Ciass, Kunid, Distt Dhaiiitaii (Chhattisgaj'h) in Crmiinal Ca.se No." 596/05 whereby acquittmg th.e respondent of th.e aUeged. offences u-/ s 294,323 & 506 (PartlI)/34ofI.P.C. 2. • Brieffacts of the case are that on. 31.7.03, PIR (Ex.P/1) zvas lodged 'by the com.plaiaant (P.W.-l) Num.aii Bai allegm.g ni it th.at on 30.7.03, at about 7,30 p.m.., when she was sittmg in. fnm.t of her house; accused/respondent abused aod tlireateiied her on account of sonie earUer repoit lodged by her, After iovestigation charge sheet was ffled on 13.8.03 under Sections 294,323 & 506 (Part II)/34 of I.P.C. 3. So as to hold the acc'used/appellaiit.guilty the prosecution has expjiiiued 8 wituesses. Statement of tiie accused/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 ofthe Code ofCiiminal Procedure in which he .denied the c.harges leveUed again.st hmi aiid p.1eaded his itinoceuce and faise iiii.plicstlon in the case. This apart, two defence w;ittiesses have also been exaizdned by him ia support ofhis case. 4. After heailag coiiiisel for the parties, fhe Court below has acqiiitted the acciised/respondent, Hence tlus ap-peal. i('L; "€. 5. Contention of Shri Das, counsel for fhe State/appellajit is that despite clear evidence of fh.e complaxc.aB.t Num.aa. Bai (P.W.-l) aod. nvo eyewitaesses nam.ely Sh.aiik-a?: (F\W.-3) & Maiiadeo (P.W.-4), the Court below has en'ed in law iri acquitting the respoiident/accused. He subiEiits -fhat ninior contradicuoiis ajid om.issions. ia. tlie C^ourt. statenicnt of the witnesses ougM to Iiave been igiiored by tlie Court below. 6. On fhe other hand supporting fhe inipugned orcler an.d j.udgnient, counsel &r the respondent subniits tlxat fhe stateiiient of fhe complaiuant aiid otlier vdtnesses appears to be iiiiproved one aiid are biRh.lv iiBreliable. He siibinits that evexi other^dse. also the judgment of acquittal. car^.not 'be iiiterfered with unless the fiadings are tbund to be pexverse. 7, I have heaid counsel for the pailies ajid perused the record, CoBiplainao.t Numaa. Bai (P.W',-!) iii her court stateinent has stated ti3.at 0:0. the date ofincident wheii she was ptoughing the fae3d, cattle ofthe respondent entered her fieid; on account ofwhich. fliere was soiue altercation between tliem and then tlie accused/respondent abused her, threw her on the field aiid threatened her. She has fiirfher stated that the nicident was witnessed by Shaakar (P.W.-3) & MsJiadeo (P.W.-4). She has also stated that all the iacts whi.ch she is iiaiTa.tnig before tlie Coiirt were disclosed to the poli.ee authorities and tf the same is not •the part of FIR or the case diary statement, she cannot teU th.e reason. 8. Kedar Rain (P.W.-2) is the husbaiid offlie coiaplaiiiasit Numaxi Bai and is a hearsay witness. He has stated th.st on the date of mcident he was not rti the field aiid when he cajne back he was in.foi'm.ed'by tlie -complam.ant- that tlie a.ccused/respondent .ha,.d beaten her. Shaiikar Lal (P.W.-3) has stated that on tJie date of iacidesit when he was workrlng m. his field. wbich is adjaceiit to the »^;.IA^\ ^ field of coniplam.an.t, t.h.e-"respond.ent/a.ccused-'was abusin-g tb.e coxaplaiiiant aiid she was lyiog on the field aiid the accused/respondent was inountiiig on her and tsying to press her neck. In • the cross exain.ioMioii, when this witness has been conlTOBted from. his case dian/ stat.em.ent. he. has stated that ^1 the facts were disclosed .by him. to the poMce .and if ttie sam.e is not tiie part. ofhis case diaiy statenieiit, h.e cao.not tell the reason^ Froni fhe cross exaiaination of this witaess., it is evideiit that fhere is raaterial isiiprovement by him before tlie C^ourt, Similar' is fhe position with Mahadeo (P.W.-4), aiiotlier eyewitness. A bare readnig of his stateBieiit makes it clear th.at he too, has improved while deposing before the Court aiid rciade several allegations agamst the respondent/accused which are not there iii his case diajy stBteraent. Dr. H.C.Godheja (P.W.-5) has found mjuiy on thc person of the coniplainant but has stated tliat fhese injuries could have been caused due to Ihll also, Rain Das (P,W.-6) Head Constable has done tlie part of iavestigation. N.P.Chaadrakar (A.S.I) recorded the FIR. BaUu @ Maliadeo Saliu (P,W,-8) another eyewitness of the iiacident has not supported tlie prosecution case aiid has been deciai'ed hostile. 9. Joidha Prasad (D.W.-l) whose field is also adjacent to the place ofthe ia.cident has stated that it is fhe coinplaiaajxt who had abused the respondent/accixsed aiid had also beaten him with her sMppers. He has farfher stated that the complaiiiant had pressed tJie testicles oftbe respondeiit/acciised. Ram Das (D,W,-2) Head Constable oftfie concem.ed police station has stated that on 26.7,03, a report was lodged by ttie respondent/accused aiid based 011 fhat the entdes were xnade in. the rojnamcJia sanha aad the respondent has jnB.de fhe allegation agaio.st the coinplairian.t regardiiig fhreat to implicate Iiiin ia soiiie false case, 10. Miaute exainiiiation of the evidence reflects tliat there was sonie dispute beteveen fhe coinplaioaiit and fhe respondent but it is difficult to ascertam as to who was the aggressor. Report arid counter report Iiave been lodged. There appeai's to be appareii.t iiB.provem.ent .>v<. ls i^,,,,,,,, i & 1 Y '^s^/ 9- L^ in tlie statemeut offhe coxxiplaiuaiit arsd the eyewitanesseSy apart from nxaterial contradictioiis aod omissions m the same. AH the aspects have beeu duly considered by the Court below and after due appreciation of Uie sa.m.e, the Courfc below has as'rived to a. partj.cul.ar conclusion of acquittiiig the respondent. 11. I fiiid no reason to inlerfere wife the judgnient of acquittal pai'ticularly the view taken by the court below is one of fhe possible view. It is a settled position of law iii relatiou to cases against acquittal, ni a petition agaiust acquittal if two views ai'e possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution aiid tlie trial Court taking one view favoured the acciised, reversion of the fiedings of acquittal by tlie appeUate Court takisig the other possiblc view in.to consideradon is not permissible ia laWy tbis Coiirt is of tlie view tljat tihe judgiaent ioipugned acquittiiig ftie respondent/accused of the offence is just and proper. Accoi-dingly, the appeal fails aod is disiaissed as such. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge