W INHlllllllllllllllHIMWIHII m‘V F0000073579 u C / mCASE No~r:@?§%/OF 2000 IQ/g’4 \ ,—,— CRIMxNAL APPEAL No.__J CW F%(o %; APPELLANT : The State 0.13 Madhya Pradesh APPLICAIW 4 -Vs o‘- F BO APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 378(iii)F9§ GRANTOF LEAVE TO APPEAL ‘ UNDER SECTION 378(i) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PRCCEDURE.1973.' 1. Rameshwar Kewat, soh of Shri Anujram aged about 22 years. r/o Pharahada. Police '3tation : seepat ,Distriat : Bilaspur‘. (M.P..) 2’.‘ Rajesh Kumar sen of Shri Bolaram Patel, age& about 21 years. r/o Pharahada, Poliee Station Seepat,D1strict:Bilaspur. (M.Po) REEPONDENTS hm ¢ r «mw ~—-~-- g % 0 g . @ EgGH C(IURT GF CHHATTISRGARH AT 3EL&SPE§R S8 HON’BLEW MR JUsTiFE PRETINKER DIWAKER CR.M.F= Nfx 51312i319 APPLiilA'NT Siam of M. P. VEI$ 11S RE$PGK€DENTS RameShwar Kgwarl, 85 Azmthm‘ ”hm Pmvcpn D'xs Dv G A far ms Ema] saplicant. A?PLICATIGN F§R GRANT 9F LEAVE TO APE’E i} {S 3”?8§3! AEJ} WEMQ $F A??EAL 3 ‘3» ‘ ‘ A: £R.‘P C. QEEER §i1.{§1.2911) Tha ymssat pstiiicm azises om, of mE impugnsd jmigmen? dateri 28.2.2000 ;passe.d by {me Addl Juliicial Magistrata First mass“ Bilaspur in Cr. Casa No. 38?} 1998 wherzahy th€ accused/ra3p0nd&nts haw hwn acqniimd of the offmmas undsr Secticns'279 (Sr. 304 {A} of tbs 113C: and also acquittad accusadjmsp. No.2 of the otfénco under Soction 18$ of the Motol" Vehicles Act. 2. Briaf facm of the case are that. on $4.98, dsceasod Simpy F3) Txiloc'hao. Ajmani was dashsd by mxck hoax-hm Reghtraoou No MR 26‘Dj5456 aQ a rEvLEf ofwhich ha met: it 1o aHagod fbaf the: sald truck belongs *o the reslxmdems E‘IR ihx B] i] was roglsrfrwi &g&n§f tbs accused/resyomiemq anti after mvoafmamon chqj‘an was mm ‘ under me Ssc‘ dons a3 aforomonkmmd, 3. Rom the j‘udgmom, it appsars tha‘ tho pro‘swution ba$ examired 3 WitneosF-s Smicment of th? accugedg’le3nom19nts wew also reooxriod under Sechon $1 f oe (.mRC. in winch tiaey' demise} the chargas isveihd agamst thom anci yloaiiad thoir innocence émd faisa imp’gcah‘on in the. case. 4. ThouJh the recomi of tho Court bolow was summnzmd bv tbs Court to which mformation has boon $ent by the tmai Court that tho 7% 1 $E “ recorci has already baen destroyed and therefore this Court, proceeds to (iecide the presem‘ case merely on the basis of judgment filed by the State counsel. 5. From the judgment it appears that m) one has seea the accident ami it has not been established by the prosecution that the truck was being cil‘iveri by aoy of the respondents. There is mo evidence on record, that $5: mmk was being (iliveyx rashEy or negh'gen‘dv, Gmmail Singh (RW- u 8x5 Mchd. Ishaq {RWJZ} have rm? fuEy supported the yrosecu‘rion case. The emire materiai have beer; duly considered by fhe Court beiow WhiEe arriv’mg to a' particuhr conc1‘usion of acquimng the accused} respondents. .v/ 6. I find no reason to mterfere in the judgment :of aCq11i$ta1 particulariy the View faken by fhe court below is one of the yossiMe View. It is a settied position of law i1: relation to cases against; acquittal, is} a petition against acquittal if two views are possfbke on the basis of the evidence le<i by the prosecution ami the ma} Court taking one View favoured the accused, reversion of the iinclings of acquitta} by the appeilate Court. taking the other possébie View into consideration is not permissible in 1aw7 this Conn is of the View that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondentsfaecused of the offence is just anti proper. Accordingiyr the ieave as sought for by the appiioantjState for registration of appeai against the judgment oi" .L acquittal is hereby refuses. i Judge Sdl- 1’ritinker Diwaker ne/ewav Lt :5, i