^, ^fov ^^ NQN- APPLSCANTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH, BILA8PUR Cr.M.P. No.83/2008 APPLICANT State of Chhattisgarh, Through fhe District Magisteate, District Jaajgir-Champa (C.G^.) ¥ersus 1 Naiikiraai Dewaagan^ S/o Ramcharan Dewangan, Aged about 61 years, 2 Salieb Lal, S/o Ghaasiraoi Madhukar, Aged about 41 years, 3 Chinta Ram Lahare, S/o Chhayaraai Lahare, Aged about 42 years AU R/o ViUage Pamgarh, P.S. Paingarh, Distdct Jaiijgir-Champa (C.G.) AP^LICATICTit^ORGRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDBR SECTION 37613} AND ISIBMORANDUM OF APPEAL UKDER SECTIOIir 37801 OF THE CODE OF CmMINAL PROCEDtfS^E. 19?3 Appearaiice: Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for fhe State/applicaiit. ORALORDBR (19.2.2008) SUNIL KUMAR SIWHA, J. Heard. The State has ffled fhis petition under Section 378(3) ofthe Code of Ciimiaal Procedure for graat of leave to file aii appeal agamst the judgment of acquittal dated 29/09/2006 passed by fhe Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaiijgir, ia Crimmal Case No.493/2005. The petition is barred by Umitatiou of 405 days aad I.A. No.01/08 has been filed for condouation of delay ia filing tlie petition. The brieffacts are fhat chailges were framed under Sections 294, 506 Part-II & 447 ofIPC agamst the respondents on account of an alleged iiicident, which took place at about 2:00 p.ra, on 08.11.2001 in viUage - Pamgarh. The allegations are fhat they abused fhe complaiiiaB.t iiamely Dushyaiit Kumai* (PW-2), fhreatened him aad also deinolished tlie wall, which was beiag t^^ ^ Cr.M.P. No. 83/2008 constructed on fhe clirections of tlie complainaat. The coinplauiaat clamis fhat fhe wall was beiag constructed on his own laiid aiid such action of tlie respondents was punishable under fhe aforesaid Sectious of IPC. After conductiag tdal, fhe trial Court, on the face of evideiice of defence witaesses namely Ram Kumar Keskar (DW-1) and Deendayal Bashkar (DW-2), disbeMeved flie versiou of fh.e complaiaaiit- Dushyaat Kumar (PW-2) as also his fafher Tikaram (PW-1) aad recorded a findmg fhat ni fact, tlie presence of fhe accused persons at the place of occurrence is doubtful and tlie accused persons are entifled for acqiuttal iii tliis case. Leaiiied counsel for fhe State submits that fhe trial Court co:Qi3nitted an eiTor of law while disbeUevuig fhe evidence of PW-1 - Tikara.m and PW-2 - Dushyaat Kuinar. He takes rae to various pai'agraphs of tlie judgment passed by fhe trial Court. The tiial Court vide para 19 of tiie judginent has beUeved fhe version of DW-1 - Ramkumar Keskar, who was caUed m fhe Court atong witli tlie attendaiice register frora tlie oifice of accused ~ C.R. Lalia.re. It has been obseived tliat C.R. Laliare was shown present ia tlie office accordiiig to tlie attendaace register (Ex.D.lC) on 08.11.2001 axid tlie same was also testilied by the oral evidence of DW-1- Ramk-amar Keskar, Vicle para 20 of the jiidgment, fhe tiial Court has beMeved tlie versiou of DW-2- Deendayal Bashkar, who deposed tliat on tlie clate on mcident i.e. 08.11.2001, accused ~ Salieblal Madhukarwas on tour, He also produced fhe relevaiit record oftlie office marked as Ex.D,2. It is on fhe face of fliis evidesice, tlie trial Court has held that the versions given by the proseciition witoesses, especiaUy PW-1-Tikaram aad PW-2- Dushyaiit Kumar, were not i^eliable aad the presence of fhe accused persons at fhe place of occurrence beconies doubtful and tlie accused persons were acquitted. In the ma.tt.er ofSudh Sinejh a.wa.j^hers vs. ^ate GfU.P. 9 S.C.C. 731, the Apex Court held that ia a matter of appeal agamst acquitt.al, the High Court does not ordmarUy set asMe a judgment of -acquittal iii 'a case where two views are Cr.M.P. No.83/2008 r possible, alfhough the view of fhe Appellate Court is a inore probable one. However, while deatmg wiffct a judgment of acquittal, it is free to consider fhe eutire evidence on record so as to arrive at a finduig as to whefher fhe views of fhe tdal Court were per^erse or ofherwise unsustaiaable. It is also entifled to consider as to whether ia arrivin-g at a liading of fact, fhe todal Court has failed to take iato cousideration adinissible evidence aad has taken iato consideration evidence brought on record contrar^7 to iaw. Sinularly, wrong placing of burden of proof inay also be a subject matter of the scrutiny of fhe AppeUate Court, Further, ia fhe matter of V.N. Ratheesh vs. Ste^e of Kerala, Am 2006 S.C. 2667, fbie Apex Court held tliat there is no einbargo on flie AppeUate Court reviewiag ftie evidence upon which aa order of acquittal is based. Generally^ fhe order of acquittal shall not be interfered wifh because tih.e presuiaption of innocence of the accused is turther storengthened by acquittal, The Apex Coiut said fhat fhe golden fhread which runs ftirough the web of admmistration of justice m criminal cases is fhat if two views are possible on fhe evidence adduced ia fhe case^ one poiatmg to the guilt of fhe accused and other to his ianocence, fhe view which is favourable to tibie accused should be adopted. The Apex Court fiirther said fhat fhe parainount consideration of fhe Court is to ensure fhat iniscarriage ofjustice is prevented. A miscarriage ofjustice which may adse froia acquittal of fhe guilt is no less thaa from fhe conviction of aa innocent In a case where admissfble evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon fhe Appellate Court to re-appreciate tihie evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for titie purpose of ascertainiag as to whether aay ofthe accused reaUy cominitted aay oflEence or not The Apex Court referred to fhe decision rendered in fhe matter of Bheuiwan Slniih and others vs. State of Madhyct Prewtesh (2002 (2) Supremc S6T). Itwas furfher held that fhe principle to be foUowed by Appellate Court considermg fhe appeal against fhe judgiaent of acquittal is to mtterfere only when there are compelling aad substantial reasons for doiag so. If fhe impugned ./y^ "^•••, I S Cr.M.P. No.83/2008 Shyna judginent is clearly unreasonable aiid relevaat aad conviacin.g inaterials have been unjustifiably elicodnated ia fhe process^ it is a coxapelling reason for io.terference. If we examine fhe facts and circunistances of this case ia Mght of the prmciples laid down by fhe Apex Court m fhe above mentioned cases, tirstiy, it would appear fhat the view taken by fhe trial Court that tlie prosecution could not estabUsh fhat fhe accused persons were ia fact present at fhe place of occurrence^ ou the face of evidence of DW-1- Ramkumar Keskar aad DW-2- Deendayal Bashkai^ does not appear to be coxnpletely uiireasonable, hence, fhe same can be said to be a probable view which inay be one of fhe possible views, which fhe trial Court has adopted, It is also not a case ia which eifh.er adinissible evidence is ignored or a case where iaterterence is required to prevent fhe imscarriage ofjustice. There are also no conipeUiag aad substaatial reasons to in-terfere wifh such fnidiag recorded by fhe trial Court, when it does not appear to be cleaiiy unreasonable particularly when no relevant aad convinciiig materials have been unjustiliably eliminated ixi fhe process of appreciation for arrivuig at a just aad proper conclusion. I clo not fiad any merit m the Leave Petition filed by fhe State. Accordmgly, fhis Leave Petition tlled by fhe State under Section 378(3) offhe Code of Crmunal Procedure deserves to be disinissed. So far as I.A. No,01/2008 is conceraed, it has been tlled for condonation of delay of 405 days ia liliag fhe Leave Petition and fhe State has not assigned aay cogent reason showiag sufficient cause for not. filhig fhe Leave Petition ia tiine, Therefore, I.A. No.01/2008 also desewes to be dismissed. In the result, the Leave Petitiou aad I.A. No.01/2008, botii_ are disiaissed. i Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge