® IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH CK M P ‘g C90 g W6 N0. 5%2 OF Cr. A. No. OF 2 State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O$cer, P.S. Korar, Distt. Kanker (CG) APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Abhiram @ Abhay, S/o Sakharam, aged about 22 years, village Bardevri, P.S. Korar, Distt. Kanker (CG) 2. Subash Kumar, S/ o Guharam, aged about 20 years, village Bardevri, RS. Korar, ‘ Diett. Kanker (CG) Samsai, S/o Jarhuram aged about 25 years, village Bardevri, P.S. Korar, Distt. Kanker (CG) ()1. APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL 7D :MEMO DUM OF UNDER SECTION 378 3 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 '(1) OF TI-IE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. m HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITIKKER DIWAKER CR.M.P. N0. 582/2008 APPLICANT State of Chhattisgarh RESPONDENTS Abhiram 8n Others APPLICATION UNDER sEc'noN 378m OF THE mum. FOR GRANT or» LEAVE & mamomnUM OF APPEAL UNDER 5Ec1‘zorvz 37am OF THE cmac. Appearance: Shri Praveen Das, Dy. GA. for the pet§tionerj State. ORDER (10.02.2010) Heard on admission. The present petition $ed under Section 378$) is directed againstthe imyugned judgment dated 20.08.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kanker iii Cr.Case No. 271/2004 whereby the accusedjrespondents have been acquitted of the odence under Section 392/34 IPC. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 14.4.2004 FIR V EXP] 1 Was lodged by P.W.—1 Darbari alleging thereizi that on 12.4.2004 at about 7.00 p.111. when he was returning to his village, on the way the accused pelsons have stopped him and looted his cycle, cash of Rs. 300, one tmnsistor and some cooking oil amounting to Rs. 300. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as many as twelve wimesses. Statement of the accused] respondents were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence. 4. After healing counsel for the parties, tha Court below has acquitted the accused] respondents. Hence this petition. 5. Contention of Shn' Das is that the incident had taken place in the evening at about 7.00 p.m. and there is enough. evidence on record warranting the conviction of the accused] respondents. He submits that the Court below has erred in law in disbelieving the prosecution case. 6. I have perused the material available on. record including the judgment of the Court below“ 7. From the record it is clear that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 12.4.2004 whereas the FIR was lodged on 14.4.2004 and there is no explanan'on for the delay in lodging the FIR. Further the EIR has been lodged by P.W.’1 by giving the names of the accused persons Whereas in the court statement he admits that he know only two accused persons namely Abhiram 8t. Subash and does not know accused Shyam Sai. Admittedly, no test identification parade was conducted for identification of the accused Shyam Sai. Though recovery of certain articles is alleged to have been made horn the accused persons but the witnesses of memorandum (EXP/6, 7 65 8) have not supported the prosecution case. Likewise, the seizure of the aru'cles vide EXP/9, 10 85 11 have not been proved by the prosecun'on as per the requirement of the law. Further as per the statement of P.W.—1 Darbari after the incident he had narrated about the incident to P.W.-3 Pusan however he has not supported the prosecution case and has categorically denied that P.W.—1 Darbari has ever told him about any such incident. Likewise, P.W.-4 Jagdu Ram has also not supported the prosecution case. 8. Thus, after hearing counsel for the petitionerIState 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 a petition against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of thc evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court. taking one View favoured the accused, reversion of the nndings of acquittal by the appeilate 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 oifence under Section 392/ 34 IPC is just and proper. 9. 1n the result, the petition being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is'dismissed as such. /,$ /