CFOODOO IlH“ ‘ NHI‘lMlllllHlWHWl y y .w q M-‘wwvu 4 4 JW r “IFE E— " t I m) M y &f IN THE HIGH COURT OW JU‘DICATURE m JABALPUR V$ ‘ viisc.Cri.C§se N /20C05W\ Qg’gq /2e00 ‘ State of madhya Pradesh Criminal Appe a1 No. Ap@ell ant o -Versus- .Lar. Baharansingh Sinha EVo Gov;n& Slngh Bistt. Burg. m“ .) APPLICATION FOR LEAV‘?‘ TO APPEAL Ués 378(11izCr.P.C. AGAINQT ACUITT - espondents & R/o Gurur .S. urur blnha aged 61 years. ?9BAL UZS 378:1} C-J .._...—-—-——- m CRIMINA ” W , . A. A rd C L HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,J. Cr.M.P Np.504/2010 APPLICANT State ofM.P. (now C.G.) Versus RESPONDENT Dr. Bahoransingh Sinha (Application for leave to appeal u/S 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. and Criminal Appeal u/S 378 (1) of Cr.P.C.) Appearance: Shri Slishil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/applicant. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 8.09.2010 1. In compliance of the Court order dated 31.8.2010, explanation dated 3.9.2010 received from District 8L Sessions Judge, Durg, is perused and accepted. 2. Heard on application for grant of leave to appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Court below has acquitted the respondent even though there was evidence on record that at the time of treatment, one surgical blade was found from the wound operated. He submits that the testimony Dr. R.S. Bhardwaj (P.W.2) is corroborated by statement of Gaya Prasad (P.W. l). 4. A perusal of order dated 7.2.2000 passed in Criminal Case No.270/2000 shows that the Court below has scrutinized the testimony of Gaya Prasad (P.W.l) and Dr. R.S. Bhardwaj (P.W.2) and ) ,v » 1f has considered the evidence available on record to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In coming to the said conclusion, the Court below has recorded that the concerned Dr. R.S. Bhardwaj did not prepare any medical report after treating Dhaniprasad though he was posted and working in Govt. hospital and even in the query (Ex. P-2), no such statement was given regarding presence of surgical blade in the wound and further in his cross-examination, he admitted that he himself had not submitted any report. The Court below has also taken into consideration the statement of Gaya Prasad (P.W.l) in his cross- examination that after getting treatment from the respondent—accused, Dhaniprasad was also treated by another Dr. Chandrahas Sahu before he was finally taken to the Govt. hospital for being treated by Dr. RS. Bhardwaj . . In the considered opinion of this Court, the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below does not suffers from any illegality 0r perversity and the View taken by the Court below is possible and plausible. Accordingly, I do not flnd it to be a proper case for grant of leave to appeal. Sd/- 6. Application is therefore rejected. ’ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Pravccn