^l COURT OF AT ARpiicant: Appellant GUPTA,CJ. J. Cr. iVJ. P. No. §97of State of Chhattisgarh, Through: S.H.O., P.S. Mungeii, Distrtct Biiaspur (C.G.). -^. 1. Raju Mehar, S/o Shatruhan Mehar, Aged about 26 years. 2. Dinesh Mehar, S/o Shatruhan Mehar, Aged about 31 years. Both R/o ViEiage Bachhera, P.S. Mungeil, DIstt. BIIaspur (C.G.,). AeeSication for arant of leave to appeal under Sectlon 378131 and_Memorandunn of y/s 378 f11 of Cr.P.C. Present: ShrE Akhii AgrawaE, iearned Panei Lawyer, for the State/petitioner. (23rd TEie fofiov/lng order of the Court vvas passed by Rajeev Gupfa, CJ. By aiiowing i.A.No.02/2009, the documents fiied along with thls appllcatjon are taken on record. 2) Shri Akhi! Agrawai, learned Panel Lavvysr, is hearcl on I.A.No.01/2009, an appiication for condonatlon of the delay In fiilng the petition under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. 1. -i- 3) On due consideration, E.A.No.01/2009 is aiiovyed and the deiay of two days In fi!ing the petltion under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. Is hereby condoned. 4) L-aarned Panei Lawyer is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeai against the acquitta! of respondents/ accused persons Raju Mehar and Dinesh Mehar. 5) Police iViungeii District Biiaspur after compietion of the Investigatlon of the case registered on the report of Dhansu, brother of deceased Rajju Satnarni, charge-sheeted respondents/ accused persons Raju Mehar and Dinesh Mehar, for the alieged commisslon of offence punishabie under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the indian Penal Code, on the accusation of their having committed murder of deceased Rajju Satnami on 18.07.2008. 6) The respondents/ accused parsons abjured their guiit and false impiication to the charge framed by the trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 ofths indian Penal Code. 7} At tEie triai, the above charge against the accused persons \\'as sought to be proved on the evidence of PVi<f"1 Laljl Sahu, PW"2 Dhansu, PW-3 Budheian, PW-4 Godabai, PW-5 Jitenu Pandey, Pv¥-6KunjiaE, PW-7 Suresh Tirkey, PW-8 Mohan SaE Paikra, PW-9 Dr. Amit Lai, PW-10 R. Dinesh, PW-11 Lokeshwar Singh, PW-12 Dr. R.K. Slngh, PVV-13 S.R. Dhirtiahare and PVV-14 Ravi Shankar Pandey. ^•— '"N.. l"3 8) Of the above-named prosecution witnesses, PW"2 Dhansu, brother of deceased Rajju Satnamj was examlned as an eyewitness to the incident of assauit on deceased Rajju Satnami. 9) The triai Court on a ciose scrutiny of the entire svidence !ed by the prosecution at the triai in general and that of PW-2 Dhansu in partlcuiar found that the prosecution evidencs could not establish that deceased Rajju Satnami died on account of the injuries sustained by him at the hands of the accused persons. The triat Court further heid that, the evldence of soiitary syewitness PW-2 Dhansu suffered from serious infirmities. On the above findings, the trial Court acquitted respondents / accused persons Raju Mehar and Dinesh Mehar vlde impugned judgment dated $.05.2009, passed In Sessions Trial No. 15/2009. 10) Shri Akhii Agrawal, iearned Panei Lawyer vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in discardlng the evidence of eyewitness PW-2 Dhansu on fljmsy and untenable grounds. Learned Panei Lawyer further submitted that the evidence of PVV-2 Dhansu and the evldence of other prosecution witnesses was more than sufficient to establish the charge of murder against the respondents / accused persons. 11) The aiieged incident of assauit on deceased Rajju Satnami took place at about 4.00 in the evening on 18.07.2008, whereas he dled at about 11.00 in the night. On his postmortem examination, oniy t\w external Injuries vvere found by the autopsy surgeon. These two externai injuries were abrasions on the ieft eibow joint and right hand wrist. The autopsy surgeon did not find any ::-<"'"^ /\^- _ ^ ^ .^^^<''. ^. -<:€SP% I l<2^?3r^-'°' ~~^- corresponding fracture. No internai organ of the deceased found damaged. The autopsy surgeon furtiier opined that the death of the deceased was due to cardio respiratory faiiure. in response to tEie query frorn the Inyestigating Offlcer, the autopsy surgeon further opined on 28.08.2008 that, he did not notice any Internal injury on the postmortem examination of the deceased. in his evidence before the Court, PW-9 Dr Amit Lal categoricajiy stated in para 9 that deceased Rajju Satnami died on account of cardio resplratory faiiure and the cause of death was not deflnite. Thus, the medical evidence ied by the prosecution at the tria! miserably failed in establishing that deceased Rajju Satnami dled on account of the two abraslons sustalned by him In the alleged incident of assauit Inyolving the iwo accused persons. 12) Sn view of the above mentloned broad features in the medicaE evidence ied by the prosecution at the triai, we do not find any Infirmlty in the finding recorded by the trial Court that the prosecution couid not estab!lsh that the death of deceased Rajju Satnami was on account of the injuries said to have been caused by the respondents / accused persons. 13) So far as the eyewitness account of soiitary eyewltness PW-2 Dhansu about the two accused persons being the authors of the two abrasions found on deceased Rajju Satnami Es concerned, the triaE Court has glven sound and cogent reasons for dis-beSieving the evldence of the solitary eye'witness. A bare perusal of the evidence of PW/2 Dhansu reveais that he has improved upon his previous statements in materiat particuiars. The triai Court, ^s f.^ -^- therefore, has rightiy discarded his evidence on account of the serlous Infirrnities. 14) Mers possibility of another view on the prosecution evidence wll! not by itseif be a sufficient ground to warrant Interference in an appeal agalnst acquittal. 15) For ths foregoing reasons we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal which may warrant interference by this Court in this appeal against acquittal. 16) The petition fiied under Sectlon 378 (3) of Cr.P.C., therefore, faiis and is hereby dlsmissed. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge