IN THE HON'BLE HlGH CpmT OF GHH^TTISG^H ^T BILASPUR. criminalR®v^iKd,Qmo«'t—l-6f2002, -^ C,p ;0; ^ ^ (u«s* 397: OF THE CODE OF CRIMIN^L PROC@DURE-1973) ^33ffN3T-THE ^CQUlTTJffi,. ^tySSnt i-''Tui^iram H83.ba ^aKur Gond/(ST), son of Late shri Parau Halba rphakur. 2). Thakur Ram soa of Shri Tulsiran Gond, 3). Ghasapain Bai •w/c$Shri Tulsiran Halba Thaky -r, , . ^ll residents of village- Sanbatpur^P.s. Deori^ Tahsil^ ©aundiloharaDistrict- Durg (CG). versus. Respondents^ Accused. isl) Leela Ran son of Prayag singb Sahu^ aged about 63 yegrs, 2), ishwar Chand son of Leela Ran Seihu, €©edabout 37 years^ 3) • Rohit Kunar son of Leela Ram S^hu» aged about 35 years» ^, D;iAs?y. 4). Khilawan Singh scn of prayag Singh Sahu aged about 42 years. p^- 5) „ Shushi 1 Kumar son of. Nar ayan S ahu^ ^ aged about 26 years. 6), Ji^oQ ^al sa^ of Loknath Sahu aged about 45 years, .1 !U y'i -' 1 1W N >^ -2- proseeutlon. Respondent^ 7)» Aagram son cE Dauran Sahu^ aged about- 45 years^ 8) • The State of Chhatti.sgar-h, "^ •'^-X^ Through tbe inspector Special Police- Station(sc and ST)Attcoaities Durg(CG), ^e^is^^PAINST THE ^CQUIT'SMi UND2R SECTIQ^ 99? OF THE CO^ OP CRIMI^M. PRGCSDURE la73J.Rg^ ^^ S.SCTION 397 Cr.P.C'. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOAIIH AT BILASPUR Singte Bench : Hon'ble Mr. <Justi<»Pritinker Diwaker CRIMINAL REVISION No. 265 of2002 APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS Tulashi Ram & othere Versys Leela Ram & others ShriAmiyakant TSwari, counsel forthe appliognts. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, PL forthe State/respondent No.8, CRIMINAL REVISIONUNDERSECTION 397/401 OF THE GODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORDER (30.10.2009) Heard on admission. 2. Present revjsion petition is directed s^ainst the Impugned judgment dated 25.1.2002 passed in Special Case No.15^001 by Special Judge, Durg whereby acquittir^ the r^pondents No. 1 to 7 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections294, 506-B, 147 of the Indian Penal Code Section 3 (1) (x) of the Sche^uled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989. 3. Contentlon of the counsel for the applicant is that on the basls of 9 witnesses examined on behalf ofthe prosecution, the court below ought to have convicted the accused persons. He submits that there was no occaston for the trial court to disbelieve the statements of the prosecution witnesses in particular the statement of Tulsiram (PW-1), Thakurram (PW-2) and Dalluram (PW-6). 4. I have heard counsel for ttw parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The statement of the above witnesses has been disbeHeved by the court below because they have failed to explain the abuses attributed to the applicant. Further their statement is inoonsistent v^th the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 1©1ofthe Code Criminal Procedure. According to the court below, there are number' T •2vc ,. of contradictions in the statement of above witnesses and therefore the same becomes unreliable. 6. It is settled legal position 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 favourable to the accused, reversion of the findings of acqulttal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissibte in law, this Court is of the view that the judgment tmpugned acquttting the respondents/accused No. 1 to 7 of the offence under Sections 294, 506-B, 147 of the Indian Penal Code Sectlon 3 (I) (x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocitles) Act is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. The revision petition fails and is accordingty dismtesed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge