j 1.1'^^ 'r^ IB^THE HESH G©mT->SFKAmlk P^TE^H AI _^ARAIfCe.«, eR3M3aAI.AHEEAI.BO JSiBUABEs- 8- ITSs* lill m :i ^^ IHE SSATB QF M.P* THHWSH P0LE;B SI^ICTt aA<3NAHDSA©»( }» '/•\ ••reRsus--' ^-' ":. HAm@00 ALIAS AiiSSH 80BDS/0 RATAR SIHSM,< AS;& SS'XEABS, R/o SHYWFBa, P^. GBSBIKH&BMt, iaSPRIOT-RA3NANSG. AOB..; :. •' • . •' . . : ' /' Kto. AJgHLICATIOlt F®.IBAffi;^@..AEBEA ffl8EE& 378 QF 6R.E.C< A@A3§@<^HE^iTOE^®%3ia>'<-.;<i'»St<asa&.iB&SSBR>By.SSRI:M.B<. RA3aBRB6AONT3STTOEa@BAEl8&SB H0» ®15/19§6« 1 msfsx y etefc-s^i E-rpai':iig| HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1997. APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh. Mahngoo alias Adesh Gond. Shri Akhil Mishra Dy. GA for the appellanVState. Shri Abhishek Sharma and Shri Rakesh Pandey counset for the respondent. GRIIVIINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1)OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (03.05.2010) The instant appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 4.9.1996 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Ctass, Kheragarh in Criminal Case No. 615/1996 acquitting the respondent/accused of the offences pynishable under.Sections 294 and 324 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 9.8.1996 FIR Ex. P-2 was lodged by Radheshyam (PW-2) alleging that on that day respondent/accused had abused him and also bit on his chest with his teeth as he owed Rs. 16 to him. After investigation challan was filed bythe police on 15.8.1986. 3. In order to prove the guilf of the respondent/accused, the prosecution has examined 04 witnesses. Statement of the respondent/accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and fatse implication in the case. 4. Counsel for the appellant/State submits that on the basis of material collected by the prosecution, the Court below ought to have convicted th.e respondent/accused for the offence under section 294 and 324 IPC but ignoring the same and thereby awarding acquittal to the respondent, it has fallen in a grave legal error. |fC —2.-" 5 . On the other hand counsel for the respondenVaccused supports the impugned judgment. 6. Record shows that as per the statement of complainant Radheshyam (PW-2) the incident was witnessed by Mohan (PW-3) and Babla Khan (PW-4) whereas these twp witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and thus the view taken by the Court below in awarding acquittal to the respondent/accused appears to be well founded. 7. Thus after going through the material available on record and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent /accused of the offences under Sections 294 and 324 IPC, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. ^-^_—--_—— 1 Sd/- \ pritinker Diwaker i Judge II illffl :fil^l^ lilill iiJiBil