f( Cr^/ 2^// o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNiL KUMARS1NHA. J. Appellant Respondents Cr. M. P. (PRS. No. S754 of2009. J The State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Distiyt Magistrate, Dhamtari (CG) VERSUS 1 Deendayal Sahu, S/o Ramratan Sahu 2 Angad Ram Sahu, S/o Late Tilak Ram, Both are R/o Joratarai, P.S. Bhakhara, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). Application for grantof leave to appealU/S 378(3)and memorandum of apDea! u/s 378 (1) of Code of Criminai Procedure 1973. Present: Shri Praveen Das, Deputy Government Advocate, for the State/petitioner. ORDER (16th April, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. By allowing I.A.No.01/2010, the documents filed along with this application are taken on record. 2) As the petitioner/ State has already submitted the relevant documents and statements of witnesses, the default pointed out by the Registry does not sur^ive. 1 . 3) Shri Praveen Das, learned Deputy Govemment Advocate, is heard on ffie question of grant of leave to appeal agaihst the acquittal of respondents/ accused persons Deendayal Sahu and Angad Ram Sahu. 4) Police Bhakhara, District Dhamtari, after completion of the investigation of the case registered on the report of one Jhumuk Lal Sahu, brother of deceased Tilak Ram, charae-sheeted respondents/ accused persons Deendayal Sahu and Angad Ram Sahu, for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation of their having committed murder of deceased TilakRamon 21.10.2008. 5) The respondents/ accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication to the charge framed by the trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6) At the trial, the above charge against the respondents/ accused persons was sought to be proved on the evidence of RA/-1 Dr. Pankaj Nagarachi, PW-2 Ramnath Sahu, PW-3 Bisauram Sahu, PW-4 Tejram Sahu, PW-5 Shankar Lal, PW-6 Khileshwar Sahu, PW-7 Khorbahara Sahu, PW-8 Jagdish Sahu, P\N-9 Dr. Shivjeet Singh, PW-10 Bhagwat Chandrawanshi, PW-11 Murarilal Sahu, PW-12 Jhumuk Lal Sahu, PW-13 Hasteshwari, PW-14 Udeshwar Sahu, PW-15 Chainsingh Sahu, PW-16 Maharaji Ram, PW-17 Rajkumar Soni, PW-18 Shiv Prasad Sahu, PW-19 Arun Kumar Sahu, PW-20 N.L. Shrivastava and PW-21 Rath Ram Patel. '-iiy ^y ^3 -\ 7) The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the prosecution at the trial found that, the prosecution miserabiy failed in establishing any of the incriminating circumstances alleged against the respondents / accused persons. The trial Court, therefore, acquitted the respondents/ accused persons vide impugned judgment dated 20.08.2009, -•^ passed in Sessions Trial No.64/2CX)8. 8) Shri Praveen Das, learned Deputy Government Advocate vehemently argued that, the trial Court has erred in not giving due weight to the incriminating circumstances proved against the respondents/accused persons while recording the impugned judgment of acquittal. 9) Admittedly, there is no eyewitness account in the case to connect respondents / accused persons Deendayal Sahu and Angad Ram Sahu with the alleged commission of murder of deceased Tilak Ram. The entire prosecution case against the respondents / accused persons was founded on the alleged incriminating circumstances. The main incriminating circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution against the accused persons at the trial were that the accused persons had motive to commit murder of deceased Tilak Ram; the iron rods were seized at the instance of the respondents / accused persons which were found to be stained with blood; and the motorcycle of accused Deendayal Sahu was also found stained with blood. :^ ^"-,6;*'^ ^ 10) So far as the alleged incriminating circumstance of seizure of iron rods at the instance of the accused persons are concerned, the same, in our opinion, is not much of evidentiary value as admittedly no serologist repori: was produced before the trial Court to establish that the blood stains on those iron rods ••-^ were of human origin. 11) Similarly, blood stains found on the motorcycle of accused Deendayal Sahu were also not established to be of human origin. 12) The lone remaining incriminating circumstance about there being some motive for the accused persons to commit murder of deceased Tilak Ram will not by itself, in our opinion, be sufficient to hold the respondents /accused persons guilty on the capital charge of murder. 13) On due consideration of the submissions of learned Deputy Government Advocate; the flndings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of respondents / accused persons Deendayal Sahu and Angad Ram Sahu; the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial; and the above mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of respondents / accused persons Deendayat Sahu and Angad Ram Sahu, do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 14) Mere possibility of another view on the prosecution evidence will not by itself be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in an app^aLaaainst acquittal. s '^;;?i"'<a » •«sves.}t-' (T^) ^ 15) We, therefore, do not find any good ground for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondents/ accused persons Deendayal Sahu and Angad Ram Sahu. 16) The petition filed by the petitioner/State under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to'appeal against the acquittal of respondents/ accused pe ons Deendayal Sahu and Angad Ram Sahu, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. ^ ____ Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha ChiefJustice [ "--!i'- subbu -•^: