IN THE HIGiLCOURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. ^J)^--' /2007 ACQUITTAL APPEAL No. /2007 APPELLANT : ESPONDENTS: (^f\^--"'.. v-^. • •:: y^*^y\ ' ;^%^t^Vbff? '^? State of Chhattisgarh, Through -TDistrict Magistrate, Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS Devendra Singh, S/o - Shraddha Singh Sikh, Aged about - 23 years. Gurudev Singh, S/o - Shraddha Singh Sikh, Aged about - 35 years, Both are residents of Baba Batala, Thana - Vyas, District - Amritsai' (Punjab State), Presently Residing at - Street No. - 75, Quar. No. - 4-A, Sector - 6, Bhilai-Nagar, District-Durg (C.G. Narendra Singh, S/o - Pritam Singh Sikh, Aged about - 35 years, R/o - Udiwala, Thana - ^Varaowala, Arjun Nagar, Thana - Chhavni, District-Durg (C.G.) Billa @ Sukhwinder Singh, S/o - Dara Singh, Aged about - 45 years, R/o - Badh, Thana - Tarantaran (Punjab), Presently Residing at - Sector - 6, Street No. - 73, Thana - Kotwali, Bhilai-Nagar, District-Durg (C.G.) Chhinda@ Sukhwinder Singh, S/o - Sohan Singh Sikh, Aged about - 45 years, R/o - Kishoripurva, Thana - Kotwali Gola, District-Lakhimpur Khiri,(U.P.) .—••Mi.lliailii^nliill ^ 1— APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEALU/S 378J3) AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL U/S 378 (1) OF CODE QFLCRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. L^t—o£_th£_ findings^and order of 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr.M.P. No. 350 of 2007 APPLICANT RESPONDENTS VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh. Devendra Singh and others. Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for the applicant/State. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava counsel for respondent No.4. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(31 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (02 .12.2009) Heard on admission. Present petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 28.3.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Mahasamund, in Sessions Trial No. 05/2006 acquitting the respondents/accused of the offences under sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 (1-b), (a) and 27 ofthe Arms Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that FIR (Ex. P-8) was registered on 10:8.2005 by one Prem Sahu, ASI (PW-16) upon receiving a secrete information that respondents/accused had gathered near Pithora Gurudwara and were making preparation for commission of dacoity. It is alleged that from respondent Devendra Singh one country made pistol, six live cartridges, Samsung mobile, Indica Car bearing registration No. H.R. 38/J-3557; from respondent Gurudev Singh - one country made pistol and one live cartridge; from respondent Narendra Singh, one country made pistol and two live cartridges were seized. 3. Counsel for the applicant/State submits that there was ample evidence available on record to convict the respondents/accused for the offences under sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 (1-b), (a) and 27 of the Arms Act but the Court below has ^^S£"^:-A:?T,-.. % '^sasi^ g ^ ^ s! "-^^SE^^ committed a serious error in ignoring the same and thereby awarding acquittal in favour ofthe respondents. 4. Prosecution has examined 16 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the respondents/accused were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded false implication in the case. 5. Perusal of the evidence available on record shows that the star witnesses - Constable Maan Singh (PW-1), A.S. Khan (PW-4) and Prem Sahu (PW-16) have categorically admitted the fact that they have not heard or seen anything with regard to preparation for dacoity being made by the respondents/accused. They have merely stated that they saw the respondents/accused together. Prem Sahu (PW-16) has admitted the fact that on receiving a secrete information the police party reached the spot but said spot was not cordoned off by the Police party in order to apprehend the accused persons. He has also stated that he has not heard anything regarding the planning being made by the accused persons for commission of dacoity. Seizure witnesses namely Maan Singh (PW-1) and Dhiraj Sarafraj (PW-10) have not supported the case ofthe prosecution. Krishnarao Bhonsle (PW-15) the Ballistic Expert has supported his report but has categorically stated that he did not fire any of the seized weapons in order to ensure that they were in working condition. Thus after due appreciation of the evidence available on record, the Court below has arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the respondents/accused were entitled for acquittal. 6. Thus after hearing counsel for the applicanVState and that for the respondent No.4 and considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the Court below, and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking -m j ^ one view favoured the accused, reyersion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/accused of the offences under sections 399 and 402 ofthe Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 (1-b), (a) and 27 of the Arms Act, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the leave as sought for by the applicant/State for registration of appeal against the judgment of acquittal is hereby refused. —"-— Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge | 'M'