HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR V V INGLE BENCH HON BLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR J. Acguittal Aggeal No.04I2009 State of Madhya Pradesh Aggellant Vel'SUS 1. Shiv Prasad S/o Ganesh Sahu .1- - g aged 55 years - 2. Tlkaram S/o Gageshwari Chandrakar aged 35 years Resgondents 3. Jhaduram ' S/o ‘ Laxman Chadndrakaraged 55 years ‘ , y 4.>_'Arjun S/o Sukhdev Rawat aged‘f 40 years " ' All R/o Vlllage Chahl PS v Arjani Distt Dhamtari (M P) ieatln for leave to A ' eal u/s 378 3 Cr P C and Crimin Aggeal uls 37891) Cr P C against acgurttal resent: Shrl Arvind Shukla, Panel Lawyer for' rhe- State/appellant Shrl l P Slngh counselforthe respondent ORAL JUDGMENT (25th March, 2010) This appeal is preferred by the State against the prder ‘of acquittal dated 20 121999 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class Dhamtarl In Criminal Case No 1146/1999 by which he has acquitted the respondents/accused persons under Sections 51 and, ’ - 52 of lndlan Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 and 51 read Wit Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ’ ‘ ' S lo ai P ‘ _ ' . . h ‘ 2. The learned lower Court has acquitted the respondents due to lack of evidence. It disbelieved the prosecution witnesses and also acquitted the respondents on the ground that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that according to the complainant, who is. the resident of Chhuhi and Choklal, carne to barrier of forest and reported to Shri G.R. Soni, Forest Guard that on 08.07.1988 at about 8.30 that villagers of Chhuhi have killed one deer (Cheetal). On the basis of that report, Shri G.R. Soni, reached the spot along with Shri Lathel and saw that the villagers cutting the deer (Cheetal). Shri Soni enquired about theiincident to the villagers and seized the meat of the deer and prepared Panchanama and also prepared P.O.R. No. 1131/4 dated 08.07.88 and reported the matter to his senior officers. Investigation was done by Shri S.M. Askari, and after completion of investigation, complaint case was filed before judicial Magistrate, First Class. 4. During the trial one of the respondents Mohan died, therefore, the case against Mohan was closed. 5. After recording statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation charge sheetwas filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari, under Sections 51 and 52 of Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and 51 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the respondents. The charge was explained to the respondents who abjured the guilt and pleaded their innocence and faise impiication. 6. After taking evidence and hearing both the parties and after appreciation of the evidence, the iearned iower Court has acquitted the respondents/accused persons of the charge under Sections 51 and 52 of indian Wiid Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and 51 read with Section 34 of indian Penal Code. Against this judgment, the State has preferred this appeal. 7. Learned Panel Lavwer for the State has argued that in spite of ample evidence, the lower Court has wrongly acquitted the respondent/s accused persons of the charge under the above mentioned sections. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued in support of the impugned judgment. 9. l have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record of the lower Court. The learned lower Court has acquitted the respondents/ accused persons for want of evidence and also stated in its judgment that there are material contradictions between the evidence adduced before the Court and before the Officer of the forest. 10. After the perusal of the evidence of Brindavan (PW/1), it is clear that the incident took place at about 7.00 clock . He further @ stated that some small children informed him about the killiné of a goat and he went to the house of Shiv Prasad to see the dead body of the goat. He further stated that he has taken the dead body of the goat to his house. Further he had stated that the dead body was not of the goat but of a deer (cheetal). In his cross examination, he has stated that the deer was kiiled by some Leela Mandali and they- belonged to other village. Thus it is evident that deer was not killed by the respondents. 11. Sokhlal (PW/2) has deposed that he saw the dead body of the deer at the house of Shiv Prasad but he did not know who killed the deer. He has further stated that he heard that the deer was found fallen in the well and dead. The dead body of the deer was taken from the well and kept in the house of Shiv Prasad. He was not certain about who had killed the deer. Mohanlal (PW/3) has stated that he hadseen‘the dead body of the deer at the house of Shiv Prasad. But he denied this fact in his cross examination. K?i 12. Kousalya Bai (PW/4) has stated that nobody has kille the d deer in front of her. S.M. Akbari (PW/5.) was the investigating officer and stated the procedure which he had followed. In this way, it is clear that all the above witnesses have not seen as to who had killed the deer. Thus, there was no evidence to prove that the respondents have killed the deer. From this it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the respondents ® unde the above sections. Thus, after perusal of the judgment, it is ctear that the learned Iowr Cour has not erred in acquitting the e t respondents under Sections 51 and 52 of indian Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and 51 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. i am of the view that there is no perversity or illegality in the judgment of learned lower Court. 13. ln the facts and circumstances of the case and after considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the Court below, l am of he view that in an appeal against acquittal if two views on the prosecution evidence are psible nd the trial Court has taken one view favourable to the accused persons, then it will not be permissible for the appellate Court to reverse the finding of aquittal by taking the other possible view on the prosecution evidence. Thus, the judgment of the trial Court is impeccable and flawless. 14. In the result, l do not find any such infirmity in the impugned jugment of quittal which may warrant inteference in this appeal d ac r against acquittal. 15 Thus, the appeal tiled by the appellant/State against the acquitta of respondents/accuse prsons liable to be and is l d e is . R.. Jhanwar Judge accordingly dismissed. r os a c . E3] L