APPLICANT Versus NON-APPLICANTs Bhukhqn Das & anofher. A1ccused Shri Praveen Das, Dy. 69w. Advoca're for the 5mm. Shri Vikash Pandey, counéei for The nan-appkiaan‘rs. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECYION 378 (1) OF CODE OF ‘ . CEINKINAL PEGCEDUFQE. J U D 6 M E N T a (02. O7. 2010) Presen‘r appeal qrises cut of fhe impugned judgmen‘r and order- dq’red 1552.1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Katghora, Distric‘f Bilaspur' in Criminai Case No. 2422/1998 acquiffing The responden‘rs/accused of The aiieged offence punishable under Section 332 of fhe Indian Penal Code. 2, Brief fac‘is of The case are That on 5.3.1990 FIR, (EXP-3) was lodged by S.K. Mulkalwar (PW—5) alieging in if Thai he was working as Town Inspector at Katghora and an 4.3i1990 after receiving secret information, when he had gone to raid the premises where the gambling was taking place, he saw number of persons including the present respondents 9am blingi i It is alleged that the respondents caught hold the complainant 1 and one injured Pawan Singh (PW-3), Constable, 3. So as to hold the accused/respondents guilty, prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses in support l of its case. Statements of the accused/respondents were also i l i 47 N recyrded under Secfion 313 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure in which they denied the charge levelied.againsr them and pléaded their innocence and false impHcaTion in the case. § 4. E Ey fhe impugned judgmeni' fhe couri beiow has dcqui‘Hed ihe respondent 0f The offence punishable under Sec‘iion 332 9f ithe Indian Pena! Code. Hence this petition. i i . 5. i Counsei for The appeilan’r/Sia‘ie submifs ihat despite clear evidence available on record, the couri below has erred in law in écquifiing ihe respondents/accused. 1 ii 6. i On ihe other hand supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued ‘by counsel far the respondents that present is ai case of false Implication and as lust of the police officers was‘ not satisfied by the respondents they have been falsely implicated. He submits that finding of the court below cannot be ihterfered with unless the same are perverse. 7. 1 I have heard counsel for the State/appellant and» perused the material available on record. 8. From the record it is not clear that on the date of incident, victim Pawan Singh (PW-3) was discharging his duties as a‘public servant. Entry in the Rojnamcha Sanha has not ; been proved by the prosecution to establish the fact that Constable 'Pawan Singh (PW-1) had gone to discharge the ,publ:ic duty. Further Dr. HID. Dahire (PW-4) has categorically. ‘ statEed that injuries sustained by Pawan Singh (PW-1) could I i l Wave: been caused by falling on rough surface. In the statement of the witnesses, there are material contradictions { ' ,_ and gthe entire prosecution case itself becomes doubtful. Ali l i j §» These aspects have been duly considered by the cour'f below while passing ihe impugned judgmenf of acqgih‘al. 9. i Affer' hearing counsel for ‘rhe parties and gaing Through ‘lhe evidence available on record and being very much conscious of jfhe existing legal position that in a case against acquittal if- twp’views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favourable to thet accused, reversion 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 vie;w that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents/ accused of the o‘ffence punishable under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 10$ For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in the l present case and the same is dismissed accordingly. sex//sdl- l