lc HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISLONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMARSINHA, J. Cr.M.P.No. 471 of 2008 APPELLANT The State\of Chhattisgarh Through District Ma^strate, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1 Manoj Kumar, S/o. Ramchand Yadav, Aged about - 25 years 2 Sunna Ram @ Sunna, S/o. - Kunjal Kewant, Aged about - 34 yeare 3 Bhagwat Prasad Kewant, S/o. Ram Gulam Kewant, Aged about - 45 years 4 Munna @ Ramlal, S/o.-Kunjal Kewant, Aged about - 40 years 5 Dadu Lal, S/o. - Sunhar Kewant, Aged about - 33 years 6 Ram Khilawan, S/o. - Kunjat Kewant, Aged about - 44years 7 Ramlal, S/o. - Guman Lal Shrivas, Aged about - 30 years 8 Latelu @ Tihta, S/o. - Sunhar Kewant, Aged about - 42 years 9 Bodhiram, S/o. Lal Ji Kewant, Aged about - 40 years 10 Vinod, S/o.- Ramchand Yadav, Aged about - 21 years 11 Ramlal, S/o. Lalji Kewant, Aged about - 32 years 12 RamGulam, S/o.- Baisakhu Kewant, Aged about -64 years Atl are R/o.- Village- Lavar, P.8.- Masturi, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ApDlication for arant of teaveto appeal under Section 378(31 and Memorandum of appeal y/s 378 (11 of Cr.P.C. I. ",. "^l Present: Shri Akhil Mishra, Deputy Government Advocate, for the State/petitioner. Order ISt (1st April, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. By allowing I.A.No.01/2008, the documents filed along wlth this application are taken on record. 2) Shri Akhil Mishra, learned Deputy Govemment Advocate is heard on the question of grant of leave to appeat against the acquittal of the respondents/ accused persons. 3) Police Masturi, District Bilaspur, after completion of the investigation of the case reglstered on the report of Mahendra, son of deceased Ramkrishna charge-sheeted the respondents/ accused persons and their co-accused Sanjay Choudhary and Ashok Kenwat, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sectlons 147/148 and 302 read with Section 34 ofthe tndian Penal Code and Section 3(2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) ^ct,1989, on the accusation of their having commltted murder of deceased Ramkrishna in the noon of 17.07.2007. 4) The respondents/ accused persons and thelr co-accused persons Sanjay Choudhary and Ashok Kenwat abjured their guilt and pleaded fatse implication to the ctarges framed by the trial Court under Sections 147/148 and 302 read with Section 34 of the v% Nli^ifc S 0' ••..^.-..s^ -.a;i- Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989. 5) At the trfal, the above charges against the respondents/ accused persons were sought to be proved on the evidence of PW-1 Satish Kumar PW-2 Vijay Kumar, PW-3 Rajkumar Sai, PW-4 NakulBanjare, PW-5 Mukesh Kumar Verma, PW-6 Dr. J.P. Arya, RA/-7 Mahendra, PW-8 Ms. Rekha Banswar, PW-9 Sawan Khunte, PW-10 Narsingh Das, PW-11 Smt. Sadhana Singh and PW-12 Vivek Shukla. 6) The accused persons also examined one witness DW-1 Sudhram Patel in support oftheir defence. 7) The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the prosecution and the defence held that deceased Ramkrishna died a homicidal death on account of the injuries sustained by him on 1 7.07.2007; those injuries were caused by the respondents' co-accused persons Sanjay Choudhary and Ashok Kenwat; the prosecution miserably failed in establishing any of the above-mentioned charges against the respondents/ accused persons. The trial Court on the above findings while convicting the respondents' co-accused persons Sanjay Choudhary and Ashok Kenwat under Section302 read with Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code vide impugned judgment dated 12.06.2008, acquitted all ttie respondents/ accused persons ofthe charges framKi against them. 8) Shri Akhil Mishra, leamed Deputy Govemment Advocate vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in acquitting the .:il'..(:"~'i ^ 3 ^^ 1 £/ respondents/ accused persons though there was sufficient evidence establishing the above charges against them also. 9) The Autopsy Surgeon found only one extemal injury on the body of the deceased and it was an incised wound on his neck which damaged his intemal organs, resulted in his death. The evidence of the eyewitnesses examined before the trial Court was to the effect that the above injury was caused by the respondents' co-accused Ashok Kenwat by means of knife (totari). Even the prosecution case contained in para 3 of the impugned judgment was to the effect that during the course of wordy quarrel between the deceased and prosecution witnesses on one side and the accused persons on the other slde, the deceased was taken inside the house by the respondents' co-accused persons Sanjay Choudhary and Ashok Kenwat and there injuries were caused on him. Shri Akhit Mishra, leamed Deputy Government Advocate fairly conceded that neither the prosecution case nor the evidence of the eyewitnesses, even alleges that the respondents/ accused persons caused any injury on the deceased. 10) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Deputy Government Advcx^te; the flndings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal ofthe respondents / accused persons; and the eyewitness account of PW-1 Satish Kumar, PW-7 Mahendra and R/V-9 Sawan Khunte, we are satisfled that the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of the respondents / accused personSi do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. '^"^'•^ \': • i "^ \ 11) We, therefore, do not find any scope for interference in this appeal against acquittal ofthe respondents/accused persons. 12) The petition filed by the petitioner / State under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C., therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- ChiefJustice SdA Sunil Kumar Sinha —-Judge subbu .eri<" "'