^ Nirbhay Singli S/o Chimjiv Aped about 40 vears R/o Manendragarh, P.S.Maaendi^arb, Distt- Korea(C.G.) , .' ^•--' ..-• ^^l^ •••"^^ r-SSS^tek ,,.'«••• CHHATTISG. ^ivip ^s< State of ChhattisgaA Through : Police Station- Manendragarh , Distt-Korea(C.G.) ^J-i-'a »R?W ^j^i^itj S ^s-tS^ CRIMJNAL PROC@DURE POR GR&NT OF LEAVE TO J'lLE THB CODB OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURJB. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARhLAT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr.M.P. No. 559 of 2008 APPLICANT State ofChhattisgarh. VERSUS Ettil<iaa!K£8i, RESPONDENT Nirbhay Singh. Shri Aj'eet Singh P.L for the applicant/State. Dr. Kumaresh Tiwari counsel for the respondent/accused. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (15.12.2009) Heard on admission. Present petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 28.6.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, in Criminal Case No. 172/1992 acquitting the respondent/accused ofthe offence under Section 456 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 3.3.1992 complainant Chandrakali had lodged the report against the respondent/accused alleging that on that day when she was sleeping in her house, he along with other persons came there and caught hold of her hand and when she shouted, they ran away. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the Court below ought to have given some more opportunities to the prosecution to lead evidence in support of its case. He submits that even otherwise on the basis of material available on record, the Court below ought to have convicted the respondent/accused for the offences under Section 456 of the Indian Penal Code and a grave illegality has been committed by it in acquitting him of the charge levelled against him. 5. From the material available on record it is clear that sufficient opportunity was given to the prosecution to establish its case by ,,.:"f"3^,. . 'w^: WSS^: 2-. leading evidence but when the prosecution failed to do so, the court below had no other option but to acquit the respondenVaccused of the charge levelled against him. From the material available on record, it appears that on 1.4.1992 the complainant had compromised the matter with the respondent/accused and therefore the offences under sections 354 and 323 IPC were compounded. 6. Thus after hearing counset for the applicant and considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the Court below and being very much consdous of the existing 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 favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence under Section 456 of the Indian Penal Code, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the leave as sought for by the applicant for registration of appeal against the judgment of acquittal is hereby refused. ^ ..,.^dD^^er ^^s' ^^L.a^.S'g"?';^ SSSpSSS*f ^vv'^ ?