•i'5 H IN THE HI6H COURT OF JUMCATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTIS6ARH STS 6 /G& C ^ M P M. Cr. C. N0. W ZOO&' Cr. A. No. OF •2005 APPELLANT State ofChhattisgarh through Station House Officer, P.S. Pali. bistt. Korba (C6) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: \^\ "c-..- -. ^^l:-'^^ ^..»^-• \,dvoc< ^0-^ Q^^^t 1) ShivRatan^inblt-Sin'i/.i S/o VisamSiar'Singh, aged about 42 years 2) Sanpath Singh, S/o Visambhar Singh, oged about 40 years 3) Sanpath 5in9h, S/o Visambhar Singh, aged about 25 years ^Qnc'f^qkl'i All R/o Vilkx9e/t>ali, Distt. Korba (C6) 'S-'ck.L1-' \&r. yji APPLICATION FW SRAbfT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UN&ER SECTION 378 f3fAND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UN&ER sEcnoN 378 rn OF THE CO&E OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. §€" XI-HC—78 3"^!^iT ..'-<0I^I WflqT Tumane ^^ '••^WM^, ^WW, fsj^iyy •C^K1.1.^.:.^^IL^ 3n^(Tpra? ('^fg^q) ?wiW( ^ICT sn^i ^NrriN Tircff if fg^^^ ^sTfiitisn^i SB: Hon'ble Shri ManiiKlra Mohan Shri*astava. .1. 14-B9-2010 Shri Sushil Dubey, GovemmentAdpocate forthe petitioner/State. Heard on the application for gra|it of leave to'appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminat Procedure, 1973. Learned cpunsel fq[ the petitionel'/State submte that even though the complainant-Manohar Singhi has proved |hat <he standing crop was reaped by the respondent-accused persons, corrot|orated by 1he accused persons Indal Singh, P.W.2 and"6ailaT-shan Singh, P.Wf.S and seizure atso proved, the Court below has acquitted the respondente foij commission of offence under Section 447^7904 ofthel.P.C. A perusat of the impugned judgm^nt of the trial Court shows that though the trial Court found that the crop was [reaped by the respondents taking into consideration the evidence on recorc) including the evidence led by the prosecution that the complainant-Mano>)ar Singh and the respondent-accused persons are related to each other ai|id also teking into consideratton the documentary evidence on record which kiroves that the crops were standing on tand recorded under the joint ownersh|3 of the complainant-Manohar Singh's Father, Indat Singh, P.W.2 and Visham|>har, who are real brothers and sons of Raghunath, has come to the conclusion|1hat no case for commission of offence under Section 447,379/34 ofthe I.P.C. ife made out. The finding recorded by the l^arned frial Court is supported by the evidence on record and the same is quil^ possible and plausibte, Therefore, in the opinton of thjs Court, no case for grant of teave to appeal against the judgment and order <>f acquitlal is made out. Accordingty, the petition is dismi| Sdf- r-wastava ^'"dm^£SWN~ 1