<^ HIGH CCURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI T.P. SHARMA & HON'BLE SHFU R.N. GHANDRAKAR, JJ. Aca.A.No.420oT201Q Smt. Nirmala Rajput, W/o Shri Basant Kumar Rajput,aged about 58 years, R/o Village - Pirda, P.S. Mandir Hasod, District- Raipur(C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2 Aman @ Amardas @ Khakkhu Dhidhi, S/o Shri Harichand Dhidhi, aged about 26 years. 3. Budhram @ Budhu, S/o Shri Kondaram Banjare, aged about 52 years. Respondent No. 2 .& 3 R/o Village- Pirda, P.S.-MAndir Hasod, District- Raipur(C.G.)' ': Acauittal Appeai under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. Shri Adil Minhaj, coynsel forthe appellant. Shri D.K. Gwalre, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 12tn Auaust. 201J1 Per T.P. Sharma._J. Heard. By this acquittai appeal under proviso to section 372 of the Cr. P.C.,appellanVvictim has challenged the tegality and propriety of judgment of acquittal dated 20.07.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Triai No. 67/2010, whereby acquitted the ^^^. ^ ''^^•S&^''^'^ 'S ''•^^^'•^^ ^ '^^'^T-f^' 4. 5. respondent No. 2 and 3 for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of Kali @Chhatrapal under Section 302 read with section 34 ofthelPC. Shri Adil Minhaj, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri D.K. Gwalre, learned Govt. Advocate for the State are heard. Learned counsel forthe appellantsubmits that while acquitting and giving benefit to the respondent No. 2 and 3, the Court below has not considered the evidence of PW/1-Rajlal Manhare and PW/12-Arjun S/o Rajlal Manhare. As per evidence of PW/1-Rajlal, he saw the deceased last time alive with eompany of the appellant and appellant had not offered any explanation relating to cause of death of deceased, which is adverse circumstances against the appellant and inabsence of any explanation this circumstance alone is sufficient for conviction of respondent No. 2 and 3. He further submits that appeal appears to be arguabie. Learned Govt. Advocate forthe State opposed the appeal. Judgment impugned, copies of the statements of witnesses and copy of charge sheet perused. Prosecution has declared PW/1-Rajla! Manhare hostile. Thereis contradiction in his evidence and statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. StatementEx.P/1 recorded on 31.12.2009 after tapse of time more than 23 days. No explanation has been offered relating to such deiay. Except this witness, other witnesses have sypported the case of prosecution. Prima-facie Evidence of FW/1-Rajlal Manhare appears to be sufficient for suspicious that respondent No. 2 and 3 might have committed the offence but his evidence is not sufficient for drawing definite conclusion that respondent No. 2 and 3 have committed aforesaid offenee. 7. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, Court below has acquitted the respondent No. 2 and 3 after giving benefit of doubt. 8. On scrutiny of evidence, we do not find any illegality' or inllrmity in the judgment requiring any interference. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby Vij'ay dismissed at the admission stage itseif. Sd/- ^~ TRSharma i Judge ! Sd/- R-N.Chandrakar Judge